New England Regional Office
                 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                 Region I
ii   renew

1990:  Region  I
Twenty Years
 The New England office of the
 United States Environmental
 Protection Agency is one of ten
 regional offices around the country
 -,.~.r ;»,  -.-#-,• :;f  tfat cooperates
               closely with
               state and local
               governments to
               implement fed-
               eral environ-
               mental laws. In
               1990 we cel-
               ebrate the twen-
     -•"-•-    "  tieth anniver-
 sary of the creation of EPA.
 Throughout the 1970s and 1980s
 EPA's responsibilities—both at the
 national and regional levels—
 expanded with the passage of major
 new environmental laws, which
 were enacted to protect the ground,
 air, and water.
    Today EPA's New England
 Office administers programs and
 enforces regulations designed to
 protect the environments of the six
 New England states: Connecticut,
 Massachusetts, Maine, New
 Hampshire, Rhode Island, and
 Vermont. As we enter a new de-
 cade, we look forward to changes in
 the way we regard environmental
 protection: no longer are clean-up
 and control measures adequate, we
 are looking for ways to prevent
 pollution before it occurs.
   If you would like more informa-
 tion about EPA Region I and its
 programs or additional copies of
 this year in review, contact the
 Office of Public Affairs, U.S. EPA,
Mail Code: RPA-74, JFK Federal
Building, Boston, MA 02203,
Telephone (617) 565-2713.
                                Message from the Regional Administrator
                                Protecting the New England Environment                       1
                                  Julie Belaga
                                Twenty Years of EPA                                        3
                                  William K. Reilly, EPA Administrator
                                A Look Back: Former Regional Administrators Reflect on          4
                                their Years in Region I
                                  John A.S. McGlennon, 1971-1977
                                  William R. Adams, 1977-1981
                                  Lester A. Sutton, 1981-1983
                                  Michael R. Deland, 1983-1989
                                Leading the EPA into the Next Decade: Notes from the Divisions    7
                                  Air Management Division                                  7
                                  Water Management Division                               12
                                  Waste Management Division                               18
                                  Office of Regional Counsel                                 23
                                  Office of Public Affairs                                    26
                                  Office of Government Relations and Environmental Review      29
                                  Environmental Services Division                            32
                                  Planning and Management Division                         35
                                  Office of Civil Rights                                     37
                                Message  from the Deputy Regional Administrator
                                The Shift to State Responsibility                              38
                                  Paul Keough
                                  Report from Connecticut                                  40
                                  Report from Maine                                       41
                                  Report from Massachusetts                                 42
                                  Report from New Hampshire                               43
                                  Report from Rhode Island                                 44
                                  Report from Vermont                                     45
                                Financial Overview                                         47
                                Composition of Region I Work Force                          47

                                                  U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
                                                          Mail code 3201
                                                  1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
                                                     Washington DC 20460
Protecting the  New  England Environment
Julie Beluga

         my first year as EPA
         . Regional Administrator
ends, it is time to look back and
measure our accomplishments in
terms of how they set the stage for
future progress.
   This was a year when popular-
ity for the environment reached
new highs, not only in New En-
gland and the nation, but around
the world. Earth Day 1990 became
a dynamic mobilizing force for
citizens on every continent to take
action for a cleaner global environ-
ment. Public support has never
been greater and public expecta-
tions have never been higher. With
the eyes of citizens on us across the
region, 1 can look back over this
year with an enormous sense of
pride in the accomplishments of a
very talented staff.
   Compliance with the nation's
environmental laws is critical to
the overall strategy for providing
for a healthy environment and
strong regional economy. In fiscal
year 1990, the emphasis on en-
forcement in the  Superfund pro-
gram produced the highest number
of settlements for clean-up of haz-
ardous waste sites in the region's
history. Several of our criminal
cases established national and legal
   Region I was breaking ground
throughout this year with many
national "firsts" in enforcement
and in protecting vital resources
here in New England.
   Here are some highlights of a
productive year:
     In March of this year, EPA
issued a final determination that
prohibits the use of Big River,
Mishnock River,  their tributaries
and adjacent wetlands as a site for
a proposed water supply reservoir
in Coventry, Rhode Island. If it had
been approved, the project would
have resulted in the direct loss of at
least 575 acres of exceptional wet-
lands, approximately seventeen
miles of free-flowing cold water
streams,  ten ponds and 2,500 acres
of primarily forested uplands. We
were pleased that headquarters
concurred with our decision.
     President George Bush an-
nounced that Casco Bay in Maine
and Massachusetts Bay have been
added to the EPA's National Estu-
ary program. Designation allows
for extensive study of these two
areas to develop a comprehensive
management plan. In early sum-
mer, EPA announced the comple-
tion of the nation's very  first estu-
ary study—Buzzards Bay near Cape
Cod. The plan outlines strategies
for cleaning up the bay and pre-
venting pollution through local
initiatives. I am proud to have this
achievement stand as a model for
other significant estuarine ecosys-
tems across the country. What we
have learned in Buzzards Bay will
help us in our four other National
Estuaries in the region.
     An agreement in principal
was reached with AVX Corporation
of New York for $66 million in a
partial settlement of the  New
Bedford Harbor Superfund site in
Massachusetts. The money paid by
AVX will be used to fund the
cleanup of the widespread PCB
contamination of the harbor, to
restore natural resources in the
harbor area, and to reimburse ex-
penses already paid by the state
and federal government.

      Connecticut became the first
state in the country to receive fed-
eral approval for its "Wellhead
Protection Plan." Close behind
were the five other New England
states. Designation affirms that
   While we continue to make
progress in all areas, what I am
most excited about is the enor-
mous successes we are seeing in
pollution prevention initiatives all
across New England.
safeguards will be put in place for
the long-term protection of
groundwater resources. It is local
zoning that will make the differ-
ence. We are the only region in the
nation in which all states have ap-
proved Wellhead Protection laws.
     In a first-time-in-the-nation
decision, a federal jury returned
guilty verdicts on  criminal charges
against a Massachusetts company
and its president for knowingly
endangering the health and safety
of his employees and the environ-
ment under  the Clean Water Act.
Borjohn Optical Technology, Inc.
of Burlington, Massachusetts and
its president John  Borowski were
found guilty after  a four-week trial
of illegally discharging toxic metal
and dangerous chemicals into the
sewer system and  for endangering
company employees as a result.
   Twenty years ago when we first
got into the business of environ-
mental protection we went about it
as any good manager in business
would. First, we identified the
problem: then we designed a solu-
tion that we thought would put an
end to it. We developed statutes
and regulations that addressed the
pollution problem, but these new
laws didn't solve it.
   Our regulations were written
from a single vantage point. We
looked at what was coming out of
the sewage pipe, the smokestack,
and the tail pipe...and  made sure
that it didn't come out of that pipe
any longer.
   What we were really doing was
playing a game of "Hot Potato"
with pollution...the pollution po-
tato. While it  no longer went up
the stack, we disposed of it as ash
in the ground; or we extracted it
from the soil and then incinerated
it—up the stack again. The pollu-
tion potato was being tossed from
the air to the ground, to the
groundwater, and back again.
   Our collage of laws, each one
written with a single purpose in
mind, needs now to be integrated
into a total management system
that protects our precious re-
   Billowing smokestacks are no
longer the norm on the horizon,
and our rivers don't burn any
more. Progress has been made.  But
we cannot let these successes keep
us from seeking lasting solutions.
It is time we review the current
management system and create one
that meets today's need and
tomorrow's dream.
   This nation, as a society, must
begin to integrate pollution preven-
tion into the way we design, build,
and regulate, as well as in the way
we consume and dispose. We must
begin at the drawing board, not the
   Innovation is the key to pro-
gress. When we look back on the
decade of the 1990s, we will be
judged not on individual cases or
single fines, but on our innovations
of thought. I want it to be written
into history that we were the plan-
ners for a future that thought first
of how to prevent pollution rather
than how to clean it up.
   To be truly effective in prevent-
ing pollution, every sector of the
economy must take part, every
person must be involved. Together
we will leave a cleaner world for
future generations and a culture
that thinks first of prevention. ?f

William Reilly,
EPA Administrator,
at Fanueil Hall,
                                                                     i   P/\
                                                            Ul    III  r"_l
                       .>—   fenjuly 9, 1970—twenty
                      -^   :^jr years ago and fewer
                     than three months after the first
                     Earth Day—the process of creating
                     the United States Environmental
                     Protection Agency officially began
                     when President Richard Nixon sent
                     Congress his proposal to consoli-
                     date major pollution control pro-
                     grams into a new agency. On De-
                     cember 2, 1970, the agency came
                     into existence.
                        In celebrating this anniversary,
                     we can take pride in the progress
                     we have made over the past two
                     decades in improving the quality of
                     our air, land, and waters.  We have
                     made tremendous progress on
                     many of the worst pollution prob-
                     lems. Yet many problems remain
                     unresolved, and new problems
                     have become evident—often diffi-
                     cult to solve, often global in scope.
                     During the challenging years
                     ahead, the broad advances that the
                     agency has made during its first
                     twenty years provide a strong foun-
                     dation from which to address fu-
                     ture challenges effectively.
                        In order to prepare ourselves
                     for the formidable array of environ-
                     mental challenges ahead,  we must
strengthen our research program
and the scientific underpinnings of
our work. We must improve our
recruitment and training programs
to assure a top quality, culturally
diverse work force. We must in-
volve our staff directly in setting
goals through strategic planning
and in meeting those goals through
the teamwork and continuous im-
provement offered by total quality
management. We must develop
and apply new and emerging
approaches to environmental
problems — pollution pre-      \)
vention, market-based        j
sue initiatives that improve the
natural systems on which our well-
being depends.
   All in all, a tall agenda lies be-
fore us. We have the chance to take
charge of the agenda and to show
that EPA delivers. It's an exciting
time to be at EPA. ?f

bioremediationg and
other technologies,
risk-based priority-
setting, and cross-
media and geographi-
cally targeted strate-
gies, among others. We
must emphasize better
outreach to affected con-
stituencies and develop new
modes of working with other fed-
eral agencies, states and localities,
governments abroad, and our many
other partners. We need to foster
environmental education and pur-


Former  Regional  Administrators
Reflect   on  Their   Years  in
John A.S. McClennon, 1971 -1977

                I think everyone
                associated with
                the Region I
                office of EPA can
                look back with
                pride at the ac-
                of the agency
over the last twenty years. Although
I recall references to a "paper tiger"
when the staffs of some thirteen
different federal agencies were
brought together in early 1971 to
become the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, no one today
can doubt the significant contribu-
tion that EPA has made toward
improving our environment and
quality of life.
   Our goal during the early years
was to respond effectively to con-
gressional mandates included in the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970
and the Clean Water Act Amend-
ments of 1972. This meant working
with the state agencies to develop
approvable State Implementation
Plans, issuing thousands of NPDES
(National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System) permits, and
committing hundreds of millions of
dollars in construction grants.
   We also wanted to show both the
environmental and business commu-
nities that EPA was a force to be
reckoned with. This meant the ag-
gressive use of our enforcement au-
thorities. Our principle was "firm but
lair," and 1 believe this continues to
be the standard of the regional office.
   Accomplishing these goals
meant recruiting additional staff. 1
am pleased to see that many of the
people I enjoyed working with so
much still hold key positions in the
regional office. These include Steve
Ells, Les Sutton, Harley Laing, Ed
Conley, Mel Hohman, Lou Gitto,
Dave Fierra, and Paul Keough, to
name only a few.
   There were some real accom-
plishments during the six years that
I was at EPA. But there were also
some setbacks. I cannot even re-
member how many transportation
control plans we proposed for the
city of Boston. These plans included
such radical ideas as limiting park-
ing availability in Boston, required
inspection and maintenance of all
automobiles, one-way tolls, and
incentives for the use of carpools.
We even dared to suggest that all
employees leave their car at home
one day a week.  These proposals
were met with ridicule and disdain.
   Perhaps the most controversial
decision that we made was the de-
nial of the discharge permit for the
Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant dur-
ing the presidential campaign of
1976. The issue  was whether or not
the appplicant adequately showed
that there  would be no adverse
environmental impacts from the
thermal discharge. Although 1 elo-
quently defended the decision at a
congressional inquiry, it was re-
versed by the new administrator.
   Nineteen hundred seventy-five
and 1976 brought Love Canal and
the passage of RCRA (the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act),
giving EPA new authority to man-
age the treatment and disposal of
hazardous waste. As 1 look back, 1
regret that we did not recognize the
threat of toxic waste to our environ-
ment and public health earlier.
   1 now observe the agency's ac-
tivities from a different perspective;
and no matter how frustrating the
Superfund Program is, I continue to
be your most loyal supporter. The
regional administrators who fol-
lowed me have continued to aggres-
sively defend the environment, and
it is clear that Julie Belaga continues
in that tradition. Congratulations
for twenty years of proud accom-
plishments.  ?$•

John McClennon is president of ERM
New England, an environmental con-
sulting firm in Boston, Massachusetts.
William R. Adams, Jr. 1977- 1981
                I was pleased to
                receive the invi-
                tation to "look
                back" at my
                experiences at
                EPA. My service
                at the agency
                brought me per-
sonal satisfaction and a sense that I
contributed to make the  world a
better place to live.
   It seems impossible that EPA is
celebrating its twentieth  anniver-
sary. During the past twenty years 1
have been closelv associated with

the agency and its people. I first saw
the agency  through  the  eyes of
a state administrator, then  of the
Regional Administrator, and now of
an officer in a consulting firm
deeply involved in solving  the
nation's environmental problems.
Each experience brought its own
perspective,  but one common per-
ception  remained throughout: EPA's
mandate of administering extremely
complex environmental laws and
regulations is a difficult one.
   In fulfilling its mandate the
agency is under continual attack
from nearly all segments of our
society.  One group feels that the
EPA is too stringent and another
feels it is too lax. Everybody has a
position: there is no middle ground.
   In my view, the agency's man-
date has become continually  more
challenging. Consider, for  example,
how much easier the Clean Water
Act was to administer than today's
hazardous waste legislation.
   I believe  EPA's success—for
EPA has been successful—may be
attributed to the talents and dedica-
tion of its  "troops." I recognized the
quality of  EPA's staff when 1 was a
state administrator, but my real
appreciation for them came during
my service as Regional Administra-
tor. EPA has set itself apart from
other  federal agencies by the  quality
of the staff. The employment of
intelligent, educated, ambitious
people dedicated to improving  the
environment began with the origi-
nal agency staff and continues to-
   The agency began with  a pur-
pose and vision to make the coun-
try a safer, better place to live. This
dream is frequently attacked by
people both in and out of govern-
ment, but  it manages to survive. It
survived when the agency's top
leadership brought controversy,
doubt, and national headlines to
bear on  the agency.
   In my view it was the strength
and determination of the "troops"
that allowed the agency to survive
and regain credibility. It was the
people of EPA who never lost their
faith and vision, who carried the
agency through those difficult
   It is my prayer that those I
served with will continue their
leadership and training so that the
spirit of today's EPA and the EPA
of tomorrow will reflect the same
dedicated qualities that made the
Region I staff so special to me. it-

Bill Adams is vice president of ABB
Environmental Services, Inc. in
Portland, Maine.
Lester A. Sutton, 1981 - 1983
                    Things were
                    not going
                    well for EPA
                    during the
                    early 1980s
                    when I was
                    tor. Those
years were the most tumultuous in
the history of our agency. What
started as an honest difference of
opinion on how best to run the
agency soon escalated into a con-
spiracy theory that claimed the
administration was out  to destroy
the agency and the environment.
Each day there were headlines
grossly exaggerating and distorting
every action  taken by the agency.
The hysteria finally subsided after
Anne Gorsuch was forced to re-
sign, but many careers were ruined
in the process. It was not a pleasant
time to be Regional Administrator.
   As I look back on the changes
that have occurred at EPA since
those days, it is gratifying to see
the growth of the agency, the ex-
pansion of our programs, the im-
provements to our environment for
which we can claim responsibility,
and the increased public aware-
ness, concern, and support for
environmental issues.
   Our progress has been even
more  impressive when viewed from
my days at the newly established
agency back in 1970. Few could
have predicted in those early years
the enormous expansion in our
responsibilities (that would take
place  over the next years—and will
probably culminate  in the soon-to-
be-established cabinet level for a
Department  of the Environment),
as the environmental movement
has become one of the most impor-
tant factors in national and interna-
tional affairs.
   Looking to the future, our pro-
grams are certain to become in-
creasingly complex as environmen-
tal problems and their solutions
become more difficult and expen-
sive. In order to handle these prob-
lems efficiently, we must be more
effective in enlisting the coopera-
tion of outside groups including
citizens, states, municipalities,
businesses, authorities, consult-
ants, contractors, professional or-
ganizations,  and other federal
agencies. We have not always given
sufficient  attention to working
cooperatively. We should improve
our communication with  all groups
so that they can clearly understand
our requirements and what is ex-
pected of them. We  should listen
seriously to their concerns and, to
the extent possible, take them into
account in carrying out our pro-
   It is particularly important to
improve our relationships with the
business community and the states.
Too often we appear to be anti-
business and anti-growth. A more
cooperative approach with the
business community and local

governments can result in more
effective environmental programs.
Wherever possible, the states
should be allowed to run their own
programs with minimal interfer-
ence from EPA. Our role should be
to assist and overview  the states
and to take over specific programs
only when the states are incapable
or unwilling to carry out the laws.
   Over the years I have seen us
moving more  and more toward the
use of regulation and enforcement
as our primary weapons in the
fight for a clean environment.
There are dangers in this approach.
It has often led to an adversarial
relationship in our dealings with
outside groups that can be counter-
productive. The excessive use of
enforcement actions, without first
trying to reach agreeement by ne-
gotiation, can lead to serious delays
in clean-up activities and can ad-
versely affect the spirit of coopera-
tion we will need in the future. We
seem to measure our progress by
the number of enforcement actions
taken and fines collected, rather
than the  extent of environmental
cleanup achieved. More effort
should be devoted to explaining
clearly our requirements and pro-
viding technical assistance to busi-
nesses and local governments. En-
forcement actions should be  a last,
rather than a first, resort. We
should strive to become a "kinder
and gentler" EPA. *

Les Sutton is special assistant to the
Regional Administrator of EPA
Region I in Boston, Massachusetts.
Michael R. Deland, 1983 - 1989

                  Twenty Years
                  of Momentum
                  Memories of
                  1970 evoke
                  Earth Day
                  messages re-
                  across the na-
tion and images of Americans dem-
onstrating for clean air, for clean
water, for unspoiled land—for the
environment. The events of 1970
promised a prominent place for the
environment on the national
agenda. In one year, we witnessed
the signing of the National Envi-
ronmental Policy Act, the creation
of the Council on Environmental
Quality and the Environmental
Protection Agency, and the passage
of the Clean Air Act: all fundamen-
tal building blocks for strengthen-
ing environmental quality in the
United States.
   With the creation of EPA came
the call for a corps of professionals
committed to environmental pro-
tection. I was lucky to be among
some of the earliest employees in
the Boston office. For a young at-
torney two years out of law school,
EPA was indeed an exciting and
challenging place to be. I well re-
member writing the legal
"boilerplate" for the first NPDES
permits while Ed Conley, David
Fierra, and their engineers were
drawing on New England ingenuity
and common sense to derive the
discharge limits. From the outset,
Region I was in the vanguard as
those permits became the national
   EPA employees, now as then,
are the soul of the agency. Success
has always come from the strength,
quality, and commitment of the
region's dedicated workforce. Suc-
cess  in the future will depend on
continued recruitment and devel-
opment of environmental profes-
   During my term as Regional
Administrator, we set many re-
gional and national precedents
thanks to the depth of the New
England team. We enforced firmly
but fairly, set in motion the long
overdue cleanup of Boston Harbor
and made a significant contribution
to the protection of America's wet-
lands by stopping the unnecessary
destruction of Sweedens Swamp in
Attleboro, Massachusetts.
   As we move forward, there is
growing recognition that a clean
environment and a growing
economy can go hand in hand. We
are in the vanguard of what Presi-
dent Bush has called "an entirely
new way of thinking to achieve
both while compromising neither,
by applying the power of the  mar-
ketplace in the service of the  envi-
ronment." This maturation in our
thinking is evidenced by the con-
tinuing shift in emphasis from the
"command and control" approach
that regulates pollutants at the end
of the pipe to a newer focus on pre-
venting pollution in the first place.
   Although some promises of
1970 are yet to be fulfilled, we have
indeed come a long way: we have
dramatically reduced or stabilized
many pollutants while our
economy has grown by nearly 75
percent. But I am reminded again
of the wisdom of President Eliot of
Harvard: "A good past is positively
dangerous, if it makes us content
with the present and so unprepared
for the future." Here's to another
twenty years of progress and  to the
Council on Environmental Quality
working contructively with the
new Department of the Environ-
ment!  ?f

Mike Deland is chairman of the
President's Council on Environmen-
tal Quality in Washington, D.C.

Lou Git to
                    A Pollution Prevention Program for the 1990s and  Beyond
            Iy pollution prevention
            vision for EPA's third
decade has three parts, each with
opportunities for achieving strong
environmental rewards and public
support, as well as for continued
U.S./international economic com-
   The first is that EPA will exert
international leadership and suc-
cessfully remove from the interna-
tional marketplace many chemicals
that significantly contribute to
fouling the environment  (either in
their manufacture, use, or dis-
posal). Promising signs include the
international agreement to phase
out chloroflourocarbons  (CFCs)
and the work EPA is currently
doing with other countries to re-
view existing chemicals suspected
of being particularly harmful to the
point that their use may be cur-
tailed in the global marketplace.
   The second is that EPA will
push successfully for conservative
use of energy and the sharing of
efficient technologies internation-
ally. Promising signs for this goal
are the acid rain cap and marketing
provisions in the Clean Air Act
Amendments which will spur the
energy industry into designing for
greater efficiency and a wider di-
versity in production.
   And third is for EPA to be suc-
cessful in pressing for transporta-
tion system changes in this coun-
try, especially in densely populated
areas, that will effectively and in a
non- (or less) polluting manner
move people and materials. Prom-
ising signs are that Clean Air Act
Amendments urge states to con-
sider fuel and transportation
changes for ozone and carbon
monoxide (CO) planning. Some
states already have increased fuel
fees for transportation-related
infrastructure improvements. A
clearly articulated plan can coa-
lesce these and other concepts to
forge a new transportation and
environmental partnership, fa

 Asbestos in Schools
 All public and non-profit private
 primary and secondary schools
 must have their buildings in-
 spected for asbestos hazards and
 develop asbestos management
 plans to assure the protection of
 students and school workers. This
 is the essence of the Asbestos Haz-
 ard Emergency Response Act
 (AHERA). Inspections, manage-
 ment plan development, and asbes-
 tos abatement work must be per-
 formed by workers/planners/con-
 tractors accredited through EPA-
 approved training.
    Compliance rate is now close to
 100 percent, resulting from the
 issuance and follow-up of almost
 500 Notices of Non-Compliance,
 and administrative enforcement
 complaints against recalcitrant
 schools for failure to develop plans.
 Complaints were also filed against
 asbestos contractors for not meet-
 ing AHERA requirements. In addi-
 tion, EPA issued a total of nearly
 $800,000 in asbestos grants under
 the Toxic Substances Control Act
 (TSCA) to  all six of the New En-
 gland states to enhance their pro-

 Radon Initiatives
 Indoor radon is projected to cause
 20,000 lung cancer cases nationally
 per year. To combat this public
 health threat, Region I has worked
 closely in the past four years with
 the New England states to promote
public awareness of the need to test
our homes and to remediate them
as necessary. The region designated
February, 1990, as "Radon Home
Testing Month" and organized a
variety of outreach activities in-
 cluding a series of joint state/EPA
 press conferences in five of our
 states, a contract with the Lung
 Association to publicize radon
 information materials, a radon
 booth at the New England Home
 Show, mass mailings to print media
 outlets, and sending radio and TV
 stations public service announce-
 ments to air. There was a notice-
 able increase in both media atten-
 tion and public inquiries.
    In addition, the Region awarded
 over $700,000 in first-ever radon
 grants to the six New England
 states and two Indian tribes under
 the new Indoor Radon Abatement
 Act. These grants are awarded to
 aid state development of outreach,
 technical assistance and research/
 development activities related to
 the radon problem.

 The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide
 and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) gives
 states primacy for the regulation of
 the use of pesticides. In FY90 more
 than $1.4 million in grant monies
 went to fund the development of
 new programs for the protection of
 groundwater, endangered species,
 and workers, and to enhance exist-
 ing programs throughout New
 England. This marks a doubling of
 funds available and reflects the
 growing awareness that pesticide
 problems can be more effectively
 regulated at the state, rather than
 the national level.
   Region I enforcement actions
 against pesticide producers/distribu-
 tors lead to two major cases, which
 carried proposed fines of $100,000
 for illegal safety claims and mis-
branded/adulterated products.
Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI)
Under Section 313 of the Emer-
gency Planning and Community
Right to Know Act (EPCRA), in-
dustry is required each year to
report their emissions of toxic
chemicals. Now in the third year of
this program, Region I again con-
ducted an aggressive outreach and
technical assistance campaign to
industry on these reporting re-
quirements, which included con-
ducting  eleven workshops with
over 1,000 attendees. In addition,
the region stepped up its enforce-
ment program against non-report-
ers in a major effort to increase the
industry compliance rate, which is
estimated to be about seventy per-
cent nationally. With the develop-
ment of a new inspection targeting
scheme, inspections are yielding a
ninety-five percent violation rate
for inspected facilities, and our rate
of issuance of enforcement cases is
rising: thirty complaints with pro-
posed fines of more than $1.5 mil-
lion have been issued since inspec-
tions began in FY89.
   Since the value of the TRI data
rests in its use, Region I began sev-
eral initiatives aimed at promoting
the use of the data by EPA pro-
grams, the states, industry, environ-
mental groups and the public. The
region also began analyses of the
TRI data for New England, secured
funding  from EPA headquarters to
host a workshop to assist industry in
reducing CFC emissions as a result
of our analyses of TRI data (CFCs
are a class of chemicals which act to
destroy our protective ozone layer—
Massachusetts ranked third in the

nation in freon-113 emissions, an
important component of CFCs),
and secured funding for a health
professionals' conference on risk
assessment using the TRI data to be
sponsored by the region later this
year. The region is also funding a
TRI risk assessment project by the
New Hampshire Department of
Health and is working with Con-
necticut and EPA Headquarters on
•a risk screening initiative in Con-
necticut using the TRI data.

Region I negotiated a settlement
with the Great Northern Paper
Company of Millinocket, Maine,
for a clean-up of several major
PCB spills. The cleanup is ex-
pected to cost $10 million. With
limited administrative authority
under TSCA to require cleanup,
this settlement of an administra-
tive complaint with an initial pro-
posed penalty of only $28,500
shows the commitment of both
Region I and Great Northern to
cooperate in finding equitable
solutions to significant environ-
mental problems.
   In another major PCB case,
Region I issued an  administrative
complaint to United Technologies
Corporation of Hartford, Connecti-
cut, for $1.167 million. This is the
largest PCB complaint filed under
the Toxic Substance Control Act
ever issued by the region, and was
the first  to use "per-day penalties."
The large proposed penalty reflects
UTC's poor compliance record,
with four prior PCB complaints
issued by the region since 1985,
and the EPA's commitment to as-
sure compliance by such large cor-
   This past year, the region issued
a total of nineteen administrative
complaints for PCB violations with
fines totalling more than $2.6 million.
Enforcement Can
Carry Pollution
Prevention Benefits
The region has implemented a
policy of seeking to reduce pollu-
tion through the use of environ-
mentally beneficial expenditure
credits to offset proposed fines
from administrative enforcement
complaints issued under TSCA,
FIFRA and EPCRA (Section 313).
Companies may reduce proposed
penalties by taking such actions as
changes in equipment or manufac-
turing processes resulting in actual
emission reductions, public educa-
tion efforts, or company-wide au-
dits for compliance with all envi-
ronmental regulations. Credits can
only be given for activities that are not
required to come into compliance with
existing laws and regulations.
   Notable successes in the past
year include expenditures of:
   $95,000 by Seekonk Lace in
   Barrington, Rhode Island, to
   eliminate the use of a toxic
   solvent (acetone) through a
   change in mechanical processes
   as part of an EPCRA Section
   313 settlement;
   $108,000 by Simplex Wire and
   Cable in Newington, New
   Hampshire, and $67,000 by
   Papertech Corp. in Contoo-
   cook, New Hampshire for the
   removal of PCB transformers
   and equipment as part of the
   settlement of TSCA PCB com-
   plaints and;
   $70,000  proposed expenditure
   by Safer, Inc., of Wellesley,
   Massachusetts to produce and
   distribute a public education
   pamphlet on the safe use of
   pesticides in the home as part
   of the settlement of a FIFRA
Connecticut Rule
Effectiveness Study
Miscellaneous Metal
Parts and Products
Coating Regulation
EPA studied Connecticut's miscel-
laneous metal parts and products
(MMP&P) coating regulation for
its effectiveness in reducing harm-
ful volatile organic compound
(VOC) emissions. The law requires
that sources submit coating usage
data to EPA.
   Following a mailing of the
Connecticut rules to 235 busi-
nesses and industries most likely
effected by them, thirty-seven fa-
cility inspections were performed.
Of those, twenty-two sources were
found to be operating in violation
of the MMP&P regulation. Notices
of Violation (NOVs) were issued to
most of the violating sources. Of
the twenty-two sources found in
violation, eight have been classi-
fied as "Significant Violators."
   The study determined the
Connecticut MMP&P regulation
to be 80.7 percent effective in
reducing VOC emissions. How-
ever, it is estimated that VOC
emissions can be reduced by an-
other 1000 tons per year if the
Connecticut Department of Envi-
ronmental Protection were to
implement the corrective actions
noted in the EPA study. The state
is in the process of implementing
these corrective actions.

United States vs.

In February, 1990, Thomas
Cappoziello and his company,
Bridgeport Wrecking Company,
Inc. (BWC) of Bridgeport, Con-
necticut, were found guilty of
criminal violations of the National

 Emission Standards for Hazardous
 Air Pollutants (NESHAP) asbestos
 regulations (Asbestos NESHAP).
 BWC was fined $30,000, and Mr.
 Cappoziello was fined $10,000 and
 sentenced to one year in prison,
 with a mandatory three months to
 be served, for Asbestos NESHAP
 violations which occurred during a
 demolition project at the Knudsen
 Dairy Farm in North Haven, Con-
    The court found BWC guilty of
 failure to remove friable asbestos-
 containing materials from a build-
 ing prior to commencing demoli-
 tion operations and failure to wet
 friable asbestos materials during
 stripping and removal to  ensure
 that the materials remain wet until
 disposed of in a approved landfill.
 The court found Thomas
 Cappoziello guilty of failure to no-
 tify EPA about the Knudsen Dairy
 Farm demolition project. The sen-
 tence is currently under appeal.

 Reid Vapor Pressure

 and the Impact on

 State Implementation

 Plans (SIP)
 In a precedent-setting move to-
 wards pollution prevention, gaso-
 line volatility control regulations in
 Connecticut, Massachusetts, and
 Rhode Island were written into
 those states' revisions of State
 Implementation Plans (SIP). High
 quality and swift action on SIP revi-
 sions achieved significant environ-
 mental results in the form of sub-
 stantial reductions in summertime
 emissions of volatile organic com-
pounds; spared the agency defen-
sive legal action; and promoted
harmonious working relationships
with the Northeast states.
   Of greatest significance was that
Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) regula-
 tions were federally enforceable in
 time for the onset of the 1989
 ozone season. RVP requires a refor-
 mulation of gasoline that effec-
 tively burns cleaner and with lower
 amounts of VOCs being emitted. It
 is these and other emissions that
 produce ground level ozone and
 summertime smog conditions and
 the reason for the need for chang-
ing the volatility of gasoline. Con-
cerns for cold weather starts for
automobiles in our New England
winters were addressed, and al-
though cooler weather in 1989
certainly has been an important
contributor to a less severe ozone
season than in 1988, there is little
doubt that the RVP team's work
made a difference. ?f
 Reducing Risks from  the
 Use of Toxic Chemicals
          Iur society has become
          heavily dependent on
the use of toxic chemicals, which
affect all of us in our daily lives in
many ways, some of which are not
entirely understood, or even
known. EPA and the states have
developed important programs to
regulate end-of-the-line emissions
of pollutants to our environment,
to dispose of and treat newly cre-
ated toxic waste, and to clean up
toxic waste sites. However, there is
a growing awareness that the prob-
lem of exposure to toxic chemicals
can not be thought of only in terms
of the generation of air, water or
waste discharges. For example,
many products commonly used in
construction and in the home today
are potential sources of toxic chemi-
cal exposure and have resulted in
emerging fields of study in indoor
air pollution and worker protection.
   There is, also, a new realization
that exposure to toxic chemicals
must also be managed by taking
measures to reduce potential risks
at the front-of-the-line in the pro-
cess, i.e. in the manufacture and
use  of toxic chemicals. This is one
of the central concepts in EPA's
new program emphasis on pollu-
tion prevention.
   Two statutes perhaps not as
well known to the general public as
the Clean Air and Water Acts, can
be instrumental in helping achieve
our goal of reducing risks from
toxic chemicals. The Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act (TSCA) was
passed in 1976 and charges EPA
with regulating the introduction of
new chemicals into our channels of
manufacturing and trade, and with
identifying chemicals in use prior
to TSCA that require additional
testing, risk assessment, and regu-
latory control. For both new and
existing chemicals the goal of
TSCA is to reduce unreasonable
risk after consideration of both the
benefits and costs of toxic chemical
use. In addition, the Emergency Plan-
ning and Community Right to Know
Act (EPCRA) of 1986 requires industry
to submit information on the quantity
of use and emissions of many
chemicals that are currently un-
regulated by other statutes.
   TSCA and EPCRA, in combina-
tion, present a set of powerful tools
for finding out what toxic chemi-
cals are out there, what risks they

might present to both the environ-
ment and public health, and how
those risks can be reduced. Both
non-regulatory (e.g. voluntary
industry reduction through
changes in manufacturing process)
and regulatory (e.g. banning the
manufacture or otherwise control-
ling the use of a toxic chemical)
approaches to risk management
can be  pursued under the broad
authorities of TSCA.
   Currently, EPA's Office of
Toxic Substances, in addition to
continuing the new chemicals re-
view and registration program, is
examining ways to streamline the
screening of existing chemicals,
prioritizing the chemicals in order
to achieve maximum risk reduction
with limited resources.  The re-
gional  offices enforce the TSCA
use/ban regulations currently in
place for PCBs, asbestos, and chro-
mium,  enforce the requirements on
industry to register new chemicals
and to  keep TSCA-required records
on the  use of new and existing
chemicals; enforce the reporting
requirements under EPCRA; and
work with other EPA programs,
industry, environmental groups,
state and local officials on the ac-
cess, analysis, interpretation, and
use of EPCRA data. The EPCRA
data on releases of toxic chemicals
is unique in that it is all publicly
available to anyone through the
National Library of Medicine.
   As more and more evidence
accumulates on the dangers of
toxic chemicals in all forms, EPA
must work creatively to use its
limited resources to prioritize the
chemicals requiring further testing
and risk assessment. The TSCA
Chemical Inventory now contains
over 65,000 chemical substances,
only 6,000 of which have been
reviewed under the new chemicals
program. In addition, we must find
the best approaches for managing
unreasonable risks through an
optimal combination of regulatory
and non-regulatory approaches.
While the Office of Toxic Sub-
stances is primarily responsible for
designing this program, the re-
gional offices will play an increas-
ing role in identifying additional
hazards to be evaluated, reviewing
alternative risk reduction mea-
sures, implementing chosen mea-
sures through aggressive enforce-
ment, and promoting voluntary
industry reductions through tech-
nical outreach and assistance ef-
   A key function in the years
ahead for the regional offices will
be in helping to forge the new in-
frastructure that will be necessary
among federal and state agencies,
industry, labor, environmental and
other public interest groups. Un-
like many of the more mature end-
of-the-line pollution control pro-
grams, there is no well defined
infrastructure to support programs
for controlling the use of toxic
chemicals. Given the size of the
task ahead of us, decentralization
of certain facets of the programs to
the states will be a major emphasis.
Finally, all of us, including the
public at large, can play an impor-
tant role through pressure on regu-
latory agencies and industry to
reduce the toxic chemicals threat
that has crept into almost all facets
of our daily life. We can also have a
direct impact through intelligent
use of recycling, by careful use of
products that contain toxic chemi-
cals, by switching to less toxic
products whenever possible, and
by proper disposal of toxic prod-
ucts such as paints, cleaning prod-
ucts, and home/garden pesticides. ?f

David Fierra
                   Challenges to Water Quality Programs
•     believe the greatest challenge
     to water quality programs in
the 1990s will be to place more
emphasis on a proactive resource
protection approach. At the same
time we must continue to address
existing water quality problems,
particularly from combined sewer
overflows and stormwater, and
maintain the gains in pollution
control we have already made.
   However, since  most of the
emerging threats to our water re-
sources are from land use activities
over which the federal government
has very little control,  our tradi-
tional command and control ap-
proach will not work. Instead we
must assist state, regional, and local
governments to exercise their au-
thorities to protect  the water re-
sources by properly guiding and
managing development.
   Over recent years we have come
to realize that preventing pollution is
a far wiser approach to  environmen-
tal management  than attempting to
restore environmental degradation.
   To promote this approach we
have developed a hierarchy of ac-
tions we will implement or encour-
age and assist others to implement.
The highest level is the goal of
preserving existing high value re-
sources through, for instance, plac-
ing restrictions on development in
and around critical wetlands and
water supply sources.
   The second level is to assure
that future development is compat-
ible with the protection of critical
water resources. This approach is
exemplified by the state wellhead
protection programs as well as by
regulations that limit loadings of
nutrients into lakes and estuaries
to levels that will not cause adverse
impacts. Since the states and local
governments have the primary au-
thorities to implement these actions,
our efforts will be mainly to provide
assistance and to assure that suc-
cessful approaches are communi-
cated to others in the region.
   Our final level in this hierarchy
is to reduce as much pollution at
the source as we possibly can. Ac-
tivities included here will be to
encourage industries to reduce their
wastestreams through both regula-
tory and non-regulatory ap-
proaches, to foster the conservation
of water by communities and citi-
zens, and to work with state and
local agencies to require  the imple-
mentation of best management prac-
tices on all diffuse sources of pollu-
tion such as agriculture and residen-
tial and commercial development.
   With appropriate emphasis on
this pollution prevention/resources
protection approach, I believe we can
develop a balanced program that
maintains the gains we've made
while greatly minimizing environ-
mental degradation in the future. *

Boston Harbor
The cleanup of Boston Harbor con-
tinued to make progress during the
past year. The Massachusetts Water
Resource Authority (MWRA) com-
plied with the court schedule for
the initiation of the construction of
a secondary wastewater treatment
plant (WWTP) at Deer Island to
handle all the flow from the 42
communities that surround Boston.
The MWRA has completed con-
struction of the piers and staging
areas to move the equipment and
workers to and from Boston and
Deer Island. It is  also developing
plans to address the problems of
combined sewer overflows. Each
month the MWRA and EPA must
report to the court on the progress
of the Harbor cleanup and any
potential problems  encountered.
   EPA has completed the Environ-
mental Impact Statement (EIS) on
the siting options for die disposal of
die sludge from die WWTP, but a
final siting decision has not yet been
made. The court schedule requires
that the discharge of sludge  to the
ocean cease by die end of 1991. The
new primary plant is scheduled to
be on line by 1995 and die second-
ary plant, by 1999.

Region I maintained a strong and
aggressive water enforcement pro-
gram, placing increased emphasis
on criminal enforcement, particu-
larly in the pretreatment area. The
region successfully pursued four
criminal actions,  including two
actions against metal platers in
Lowell,  Massachusetts, for illegally
discharging toxics into the munici-
pal sewer system, which in turn
discharges to the Merrimack River,
a major source of drinking water.
The companies Astro Circuits Cor-
poration and Wells Metal Finish-
ing, Inc. of Lowell, were convicted
at separate trials. These cases were
the first in the region to result in
jail sentences being issued for envi-
ronmental violations. With assis-
tance from the Connecticut De-
partment of Environmental Protec-
tion the region also filed an action
against Dexter Paper Corporation
for National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) efflu-
ent violations. This civil suit seeks
a multi-million-dollar penalty, one
of the largest civil penalties ever
proposed in the region for environ-
mental violations.
   The region referred four civil
actions to the Department of Jus-
tice for unpermitted filling of wet-
lands and settled another civil case
against Manchester, Connecticut
for $300,000 as well as substantial
restoration. Additionally, the re-
gion referred two criminal cases to
the Department of Justice for sub-
mission of fraudulent data from
public water systems.

Toxic  Chemical

The Region I NPDES Permit Pro-
gram reached a peak in controlling
toxic chemicals during FY 1990.
Each of the approximately forty
municipal permits issued by the
region this year contained limits on
whole effluent toxicity as well as
monitoring requirements to ensure
that the limits are not exceeded.
(These permits aim to monitor and
control biological as well as chemi-
cal contamination.) Additionally
the Water Division has completed
55 individual control strategies for
identified toxic dischargers in ac-
cordance with section 304(1) of the
Water Pollution Control Act of
1987. Another 20 industrial permits
will also contain chemical specific or
whole effluent toxicity limits and
monitoring requirements.
   These requirements in NPDES
permits will be tracked for compli-
ance by the toxidata system devel-
oped by the NPDES program. All
major dischargers were made aware
in the spring of 1990 that Region I
intends to enforce toxicity limits in
permits and will demand strict ad-
herence to the scientific protocols
developed by the agency.

Wellhead Protection
The Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments of 1986 created a
new program to protect groundwa-
ter that is used for drinking water.
Unlike many other programs the
Wellhead Protection Program is
preventative, designed to protect
water supplies from possible con-
tamination. The program provides
the states with flexibility in identi-
fying sensitive areas around wells
and developing management ap-
proaches for minimizing the threat
from existing and future land uses.
Connecticut and Massachusetts
had the first two wellhead protec-
tion programs in the country, with
Rhode Island close behind. The
remaining three New England states
had programs approved in Septem-
ber 1990, making Region I the first
region to approve all of its states in
wellhead protection programs.

The National Estuary Program
This year saw the designation of
two additional New England estu-
aries—Massachusetts Bay and
Casco Bay. Maine—to the National
Estuary Program. This program is
mandated by the Water Quality Act
of 1987 to identify, protect and
improve nationally significant estu-
aries. During a five-year period of
study, a local oversight committee.
ment Programs for all six New
England states. Mandated under
the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1987, the management programs
call for four-year programs to plan
for major nonpoint source threats
such as land development, con-
struction, stormwater runoff, and
agricultural activities. The region
worked intensively with the states
or "management conference," de-
velops a Comprehensive Conserva-
tion and Management Plan to pro-
mote long-term and comprehensive
planning and management for the
coastal resource in question. The
first such extensive plan in the
National Estuary Program was
completed for Buzzards Bay in June
1990. Recommendations are also
being developed for Long Island
Sound and Narragansett Bay.

Nonpoint Source
Management and
Protection Programs
Region 1 approved Nonpoint
Source Assessments and Manage-
to develop these programs and
follow up with implementation
projects, assisted by Clean Water
Act grants.
   These programs are helping the
states develop long-range plans to
protect existing high-quality estu-
aries, lakes, aquifers, and wetlands
such as Casco Bay and Sebago Lake
in Maine and Lake Champlain in
Vermont; stormwater and sediment
control regulations are helping to
protect Rhode Island's Scituate
Reservoir and Narragansett Bay,
and aquifers and priority water-
sheds are being protected through
enforceable statewide agricultural
sediment control and stormwater
Best Management Practices.
Wetlands Protection
Programs: Big River
The region has taken an aggressive
stance this year with regard to wet-
lands protection, most notably in
the heavily publicized EPA denial
of the permit for the Big River res-
ervoir. The 3,400-acre water sup-
ply reservoir was proposed for
construction in West Greenwich
and Coventry, Rhode Island as a
joint venture by the state of Rhode
Island and the U.S. Army Corps of
   The project would have caused
an unprecendented loss of nearly
600 acres of valuable wetlands and
destroyed habitat for many species
of wildlife. Ninety percent  of the
public comments expressed oppo-
sition to the reservoir, citing con-
cerns about the environmental
impacts, the loss of recreation, and
the high cost of the project.
   Section 404 (c) of the Clean
Water Act empowers EPA to pro-
tect wetlands and water bodies
from construction projects which
would cause "unacceptable adverse
effects" to, among others, wildlife
and recreation. This dam would
have transformed a diverse ecosys-
tem harboring a wide variety of
wildlife into a shallow lake that
would benefit only a few species,
primarily warm water fish. The loss
of 600 acres of wetlands would
have been greater than any project
permitted in New England since
the inception of the Clean Water
Act in 1972. i*

Drinking Water Protection Program
When the Safe Drinking Water Act
was passed in 1974, it initiated the
first comprehensive national pro-
gram to safeguard public drinking
water. It brought under federal stan-
dards almost 60,000 community
water supply systems serving 200
million people daily. The result for
many has been a striking improve-
ment in drinking water quality.
   In addition,  the state programs
for drinking water have become
more effective. Federal grants have
enabled all six New England states
to improve oversight, testing and
analytical capabilities. Programs to
train and certify system operators
have expanded. And many small
systems, once ignored, are now
under supervision.
   Thanks to the research con-
ducted under the Act, we now have
a much better understanding of the
nature of organic contaminants in
drinking water and their effects on
human health. We have recognized
the threat of groundwater contami-
nation, and we have developed
some promising techniques for
detecting and removing groundwa-
ter contaminants.
   But many challenging problems
remain, in particular the compli-
ance of small systems with primary
standards. Of almost 60,000 sys-
tems, nearly two-thirds serve 500
or fewer people. Many communi-
ties have serious technical and
economic difficulties in complying
with requirements.
   In response to these challenges,
Congress enacted the Safe Drinking
Water Act Amendments of 1986.
The new law established specific
requirements for regulation of
many more contaminants in drink-
ing water while  giving new en-
forcement authority to EPA. The
law also banned the use of lead
solder and pipe, which have been
used extensively in New England.
Finally, a new wellhead protection
program to protect areas around
groundwater supplies has become
the cornerstone of EPA's efforts  to
protect this important resource in
New England.

Control of Wastewater

From Point  Sources
The passage of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) in 1972 established two
major programs for the control of
wastewater discharging from pipes
to the nation's waterways. Title II of
CWA provided for federal grants
that covered up to 75 percent of the
cost to municipalities of the con-
struction of wastewater treatment
plants. Title IV of the Act established
a permit program, known as the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimi-
nation System (NPDES) that prohib-
ited the discharge of pollutants with-
out a permit. Permits specify the
amount and kind of pollutants that
can be discharged.
   Under Title II of the CWA,
EPA, with the cooperation and
assistance of the states, has
awarded over 54 billion dollars for
the construction of 27,000 munici-
pal sewers and treatment plants.
This program has resulted in
marked improvement to the condi-
tion of the nation's rivers, lakes
and estuaries. At its peak the Con-
struction Grants Program under
Title II of the Clean Water Act was
the largest public works undertaking
in the history of the United States.
   In 1987 the Clean Water Act
was amended to include a Title VI,
which created a new mechanism
for funding Municipal Wastewater
Treatment systems. The same
amendment provided for the elimi-
nation of the old municipal grant
process by the states. Now the
states use the money as the base for
a revolving loan fund; the program
is named the State Revolving Fund
(SRF). This plan allows the states
to  provide financial assistance to
many more communities on a con-
tinuing basis. Financial assistance
is given in the form of a low- or no-
interest loan and in some cases can
be equivalent to a 50 percent grant.
   The early grant program and its
successor, the revolving loan fund,
have and will continue to provide
the cities and towns across the
country with the necessary money
to  construct complex wastewater
treatment systems.
   While Titles II and VI provided
financial assistance to build mu-
nicipal treatment plants, Title IV
established the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES). The NPDES program
required that each discharger of
wastewater obtain a permit from
EPA in order to discharge legally.
This requirement effected 20,000
facilities nationwide. Many of
these facilities had only one dis-
charge pipe, while others had as
many as a hundred pipes discharg-
ing pollutants.
   EPA began to attack this mas-
sive job in 1973. Over the years
EPA has delegated its authority to
states that have met all the strin-
gent requirements necessary to
take over the program. Today 37
states operate NPDES programs.
   In the 1970s EPA and the states
issued some 20,000 permits, con-
tributing greatly to the cleanup of
waterways. Failure to comply with
the permits can result in civil or
criminal penalties.

    The first permits were issued
 with an eye toward cleaning up
 conventional pollutants from mu-
 nicipal sewers and paper mills. As
 time went by and permits had to be
 reissued, EPA gave special atten-
 tion to industries such as metal
 finishing, electroplating, and or-
 ganic chemical manufacturers.
 National categorical standards were
 developed for compliance by every
 facility regardless of location. The
 categorical standards were in-
 cluded in all the permits issued in
 the early 1980s and resulted in the
 removal of millions of tons of pol-
 lutants from our waterways.
    In 1985 EPA began a third
 round of permit issuance. This
 time the agency turned its atten-
 tion to water quality standards and
 the discharge of chemicals and
 substances that cause  toxicity. Per-
 mits issued today insure that all
 pollutants—conventional, chemical
 specific, and toxic—are limited to
 maintain water quality standards
 and minimize the threat to human
 and aquatic life.
    As we look to the future we will
 be attempting to insure that
 stormwater does not pick up pol-
 lutants as it flows to the waterways.
 We will also be examining how
 sediments in our lakes, rivers and
 streams become contaminated and
 how we can correct the problem.
 Long-standing hotbeds of pollution
 lying at the bottom of  these water-
 ways can cause serious pollution
 problems. We have sharply cur-
 tailed the discharge of pollutants in
 the past few years, but we must
 still deal with the pollutants that
 were discharged long before the
 establishment of EPA and the pas-
 sage of the Clean Water Act.
 Evolution From Point
 Source Controls to
 Resource Protection
 Progress in municipal and indus-
 trial waste treatment of gross point
 sources unmasked threats to our
 waters from nonpoint source pollu-
 tion as well—ranging from urban
 storm runoff, construction, and
 land development to agriculture.
 Poorly planned land development,
 for example (both large-scale and
 cumulative) threatened, degraded,
 or outright destroyed our heritage
 of wetlands, estuaries, lakes, and
 aquifers. In response, first the 1972
Clean Water Act established a pro-
gram to help states and regional
agencies begin to address nonpoint
sources, lakes, and wetlands; later
the 1987 Amendments (to the
Clean Water Act) established an
estuary and bays program and
greatly expanded programs for
nonpoint sources, toxics, urban
stormwater, groundwater, and
wetlands. The Safe Drinking Water
Act Amendments (1986) estab-
lished programs to protect well-
head areas and sole source
acquifers. EPA established offices
for wetlands, estuarine, and
groundwater protection. <*•
Coastal Protection
Over the years, more and more
people have been moving to
America's shorelines—over half
now live in counties along the
oceans and the Great Lakes. Along
with this rapid population growth
comes a panoply of environmental
problems, including those associ-
ated with solid waste disposal,
sewage, lawn chemicals, household
wastes, run-off from roads and
parking lots, destruction of sensi-
tive ecosystems, and air pollution.
   In some of our harbors the sedi-
ments are contaminated from dis-
charges that have occurred over
many years. These pollutants enter
the marine food chain  through
bottom-dwelling organisms. Each
day sewage treatment plants dis-
charge 9.5 billion gallons of waste-
water effluent into our nation's
estuaries. Because of pollution,
there are harvest restrictions in
about 40 percent of U.S. shellfish
   But we are committed to pro-
tecting our New England coasts in
the coming decade, and we are
making progress. Between 1972
and 1986 in New England alone,
EPA awarded over $3.5 billion in
grants for sewage treatment plants,
and state and local governments
have dedicated many more millions
of dollars to the job. In 1982,
strong local support from Cape
Cod led to EPA's first designation
of a sole source aquifer.  (We now
have designated 12 sole  source
aquifers.) Cape Cod has been a
model in the implementation of
watershed planning, and New En-
gland has been an active participant
in the National Estuary Program.
State and local cooperation are
leading to better land use planning,
both to prevent the destruction of
sensitive ecosystems and to avoid
generating wastes in areas that
simply do not have any  more ca-
pacity to assimilate them.
   EPA and the states are reducing
the ocean and coastal disharge of
industrial and municipal wastewa-
ters. Ocean dumping of raw sewage
and sewage sludge through outfall
pipes will be virtually eliminated.

Deep sea disposal of municipal
sludge is being phased out, and the
ocean has been closed to industrial
dumping, waste incineration, and
radioactive waste disposal. Ocean
dumping of medical wastes is pro-
hibited as of 1991. EPA is currently
developing rules to implement the
Shore Protection Act of 1988,
aimed at preventing pollution of
coastal waters by vessels transport-
ing municipal and commercial
wastes. We are confident that the
coming decade will see great
strides in cleaning up and protect-
ing our coastal resources.

Clearly, our greatest challenge will
be managing the evolution of water
programs from correction/restora-
tion programs to a greater empha-
sis on water resource protection. At
the same time we must continue to
maintain the integrity of existing
control programs during times of
tight budgets. We must move to-
ward a more proactive preventative
approach to preserve the integrity
of the environment— for its own
sake and also because we cannot
afford to continue our financial
investment in restoration.
   We have found through the
past decade how difficult and
costly it is to clean up groundwater
contamination. Consequently our
groundwater program stresses pro-
tection of the resource through the
coordination of federal, state, and
local programs.  At the federal level
we will be challenged with provid-
ing technical assistance to both
state and local governments to
encourage protection before any
contamination incident occurs.
The challenge will be to do this
effectively at a  time when most
state and local  governments are
feeling fiscally  constrained.
   Because groundwater protec-
tion is so intimately related to land
use issues, local governments have
an especially significant role to
play here. With the help of the
states we will need to provide a
range of alternatives appropriate to
various local governments to help
protect their resources. These may
include new local land use pro-
grams, enforcement of existing regu-
lations, pollution prevention initia-
tives, and financing strategies. (*•

Merrill S. Hohman
           nt Division
                   A Shifting Emphasis Toward  Preventing Pollution
Since the creation of EPA twenty
years ago, this nation has made
significant advances in protecting
our environment. Many of our
rivers and streams have been re-
stored to fishable/swimmable qual-
ity, the air in many of our cities no
longer poses a threat to our health,
and we have established aggressive
programs to assure proper manage-
ment of our industrial and munici-
pal waste streams. We are also
making rapid progress  in cleaning
up the results of improper disposal
practices of the past. Perhaps the
most exciting news of all is that
increasing numbers of Americans
continue to support our environ-
mental protection programs.
   At the same time, we have been
learning that the problems of the
past have been the easier ones to
solve. Over the last two decades, as
pollutant measurement techniques
have advanced, we have discovered
that even minute levels of many
toxics can pose serious threats to
health and the environment. And,
we are realizing that our conven-
tional approach of command and
control is not adequate to address
each and every such threat. EPA
will place increasing emphasis on
programs to help industry and
individual citizens reduce or elimi-
nate the use of toxic chemicals.
Pollution prevention avoids the
need for increasingly complex
regulations and controls by simply
not creating the hazard in the first
   The past twenty years of EPA
have been exciting—the next
twenty will be even more so as we
try to change our society from a
chemical-reliant one to a self-reli-
ant one. Whether it be through
mechanisms such as elimination of
unnecessary packaging or less fre-
quent use of our automobiles, or
through management of growth
and development,  EPA and the
American people will need to work
closely together to preserve the
gains of the past and to solve the
problems of the future. ?f

Sylvester Superfund
Site Groundwater
Installation of a groundwater pump
and treatment system at the
Sylvester (Gilson Road) Superfund
Site in Nashua, New Hampshire in
1987 marked one of the first times
this technology was used at a
Superfund site. Designed to extract
and treat 300 gallons per minute of
contaminated groundwater from a
twenty-acre manmade containment
area, the treatment plant has con-
sistently achieved upwards of 95
percent  removal of the 16 major
chemical compounds. Approxi-
mately 75 percent of all contami-
nants within the containment area
now meet established cleanup lev-
els on over 95 percent of the site.
   It is expected that cleanup lev-
els will be met within the next
three years at this site.

Medical Waste
Tracking System
Spurred by our East Coast beaches
being littered with needles, sy-
ringes, vials and other medical
waste, and back alley dumpsters
overflowing with medical waste
improperly disposed of, Region I
kicked off what may become the
nation's model of a medical waste
tracking system. States participat-
ing in the pilot are Connecticut,
Rhode Island, New York, New
Jersey, and Puerto Rico. The sys-
tem parallels the successful cradle-
to-grave tracking program devel-
oped to  handle hazardous wastes.
From reports received as part of
the program, Region I has found
that 48,000 tons of medical waste
were produced by 16,400 doctors.
dentists, veterinarians, clinics, and
hospitals. Hospitals account for
ninety-two percent of all medical
waste, most of which is inciner-
ated. With this program in place,
the potential for mismanagement of
medical waste from commercial
and institutional facilities is greatly

"One dirty LUST story
has a clean ending"
Northwood Ridge, NH — Gasoline
leaking from underground supply
tanks at a convenience store on a
ridgetop in this southeastern New
Hampshire community contami-
nated sixteen local wells serving
residences, an elementary school,
and several businesses. First discov-
ered in well water in August 1986,
the dissolved gasoline had migrated
from the tank area through fractured
bedrock into the aquifer supplying
the surrounding area.
   Local residents formed their
own water district, mobilizing state
environmental and legislative assis-
tance. By the summer of 1987, the
New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services had identi-
fied and provided alternative water
supplies to those affected. When
money from the new EPA Leaking
Underground Storage Tank Pro-
gram became available in Septem-
ber of 1987, the community hired
an engineering contractor to  iden-
tify a replacement water supply
source. Selected was a water source
in an undeveloped high valley on
the flank of the Northwood Ridge.
It was purchased in the spring of
1989 from two sisters whose  ances-
tors had settled the land in the
eighteenth century.
   Construction began in the sum-
mer of 1989, and the distribution
system was substantially complete
by December. A final cost recovery
settlement came in spring of  1990
and services for the school and
private residences were completed
in August 1990.
   The result of all these state and
local initiatives is that within four
years of the initial discovery of
gasoline in their wells and vapors
in their homes, Northwood Ridge
area residents will be drinking and
using clean water from an aquifer
whose supply is protected from
future contamination, ft-

Gen Manion,
1990 Secretary of
the Year, dedicates
her time to the
Waste Management
Since the founding of the U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency in
1970, two of the most significant
events addressing a major public
health and environmental problem
were the passage of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) in 1976 and the Compre-
hensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA).
   A series of headline-grabbing
stories  in the late 1970s gave
Americans a crash course in the
perils of hazardous waste manage-
ment. First  there was Love Canal,
the community in  Niagara,  NY that
had to be evacuated after the dis-
covery  that hazardous waste buried
over a 25-year period had contami-
nated ground water.
   Then the Valley of the Drums
took center stage. This noxious
deposit of leaking storage barrels in
Kentucky quickly became one of
the most notorious places in the
United States.
   The little community of Times
Beach, MO became the next national
hazardous waste story. Oil contami-
nated with highly toxic dioxin
tainted the soil and the water in this
eastern Missouri community.
   In all these instances,  lives were
disrupted and property values were
ruined. Suddenly Americans began
to wonder who would be
next....and who would be there to
pick up the pieces.
   The experiences of the 1970s
led to the belief that a federal law
was needed to protect U.S. citizens.
CERCLA was the first major law
designed to protect against  the
dangers posed by hazardous waste
abandoned  at sites throughout the
   As of Jan 1, 1990, EPA Region 1
has proposed or finalized listing of
eighty-four Superfund sites includ-
ing nine federal facilities.
   Of the seventy-six non-federal
facilities, the region began studies
at sixty-four of them. Of the sixty-
four sites where studies have began
EPA has:
  determined the remedy for
  forty-one of these sites,
  started design at thirty-two of
  these sites, and
  started construction at eighteen
  of these sites.

Through Fiscal Year 1989 EPA
Region I has selected remedies at
Superfund sites totalling more  than
$425,000,000 for design, construc-
tion, and operation. Through our
enforcement efforts in FY89, the
responsible parties have agreed to
reimburse EPA approximately
$30,000,000 for past agency costs
and to perform approximately
$70,000,000 of this cleanup work.
   Fundamental to the safe han-
dling of hazardous waste are the
regulations that establish a "cradle-
to-grave" system for managing
hazardous waste and for tracking
the movement of hazardous waste
from its point of generation to
treatment, storage, or ultimate
disposal. RCRA also imposes
groundwater monitoring and finan-
cial assurance requirements on the
owners and operators of hazardous
waste treatment, storage, and dis-
posal facilities, in order to ensure
the early detection of contamina-
tion and the availability of monies
to address it. With the passage of
HSWA in 1984, EPA was given the
authority to address environmental
contamination caused by historic
waste disposal practices. The
agency can now deal with past,
present, and future contamination
under the broad regulatory frame-
work Congress has given it.
   The impact of the RCRA pro-
gram in Region 1 has been dra-
matic, as the following statistics
   Upwards of 5000 hazardous
   waste generators not previously
   subject to regulation were
   brought into the federal regula-
   tory scheme.
   As a result of the increased con-
   trols  RCRA placed on land
   disposal facilities (LDFs), many
   chose to close and to manage
   their wastes in a manner other
   than  disposal on the land. In
   1980 there were 150 LDFs in
   Region I; today there is one.
   As with the LDFs, many treat-
   ment/storage facilities (TSFs)
   chose to ship their wastes off-
   site rather than manage them
   on-site in units subject to
   RCRA. In 1980 we had approxi-
   mately 500 TSFs in  Region I;
   today we have 180.
   EPA has implemented an ag-
gressive compliance and enforce-
ment program in order to ensure
that  facilities comply with these
important waste handling require-
ments. Since the advent of RCRA,
we have inspected upwards of 700
hazardous waste generators and
treatment/storage/disposal facili-
ties,  issued 80 Civil Complaints
assessing approximately $3.3 mil-
lion  in penalties for violations of
the act,  and referred twenty
cases to the  Department of Jus-

Work progresses
nt the Winthrop
Landfill Site in
Wiuthrop, Maine
(inset). Open barrels
pose a potential
hazard at this
industry facility.
tice for civil or criminal pros-
   Concurrent with this federal
effort, the New England states
implement their own hazardous
waste control programs. All states
in the region, with the exception
of Connecticut, have been autho-
rized by EPA to carry out these
programs in lieu of EPA, with the
federal government providing
technical assistance and oversight,
and taking independent enforce-
ment action  when circumstances
so warrant.
   Clearly, the impact oi RCRA in
Region 1 has been dramatic and
has fundamentally changed the
nature of our hazardous waste
universe and the manner in which
that waste is managed.
                                                      Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST)
The 1984 Amendments to RCRA
granted EPA more responsibility.
for the first time, to regulate raw
materials like petroleum and haz-
ardous substances stored in under-
ground storage tanks.
   Subtitle 1, the Leaking Under-
ground Storage Tank (LUST) provi-
sion of RCRA, brought 1.5 million
tanks at 750,000 facilities under
federal regulation nationally. In
New England that translates to
100,000 tanks at 40,000 sites, and
any one leak in the wrong place
could  wipe out a neighborhood's
water supply or fill a basement
with dangerous fumes.
   Working directly with our New
England state regulatory agencies,
EPA Region 1 has begun to imple-
ment a pollution prevention strat-
egy of finding existing leaking
tanks and encouraging replacement
of substandard storage systems
before they fail.
   Also, up to $12 million has
been made available to slates from
the Leaking Underground Storage
Tank Trust Fund. The program
funds staff for managing clean-ups
and for direct corrective action at
sites where no owner can be found.
In addition several states are pro-
viding bottled water temporarily to
homeowners who have petroleum
contaminated wells and are plan-
ning permanent alternate water
supplies in Rhode Island, New
Hampshire and Maine, ff

                   Implementing  "Worst  Sites  First"
A Geographic
Information System
(CIS) enables ~EPA
scientists to map
potential sources of
pollution together
with sensitive
resources, such as
nearby rivers and
streams. PMD (refer
to p. 35) provides a
approach to planning
by integrating air,
water, and land
           ne of the major chal-
           lenges of the 1990s
for Region 1's Waste Management
Division will be to insure that
available resources are applied to
the most important environmental
problems. The scope and size of
the waste-related activities in rela-
tion to the available resources
make it extremely important that
priorities be developed in a manner
which insures that attention is
given to the most serious environ-
mental and health-related problems
in the region. By developing a
"worst sites first" approach, we can
meet the challenge of resource
   It is extremely important that
state and federal waste regulatory
activities be carefully coordinated.
The approximate numbers of
waste-related activities requiring
state and federal attention in New
England are as follows:
Category of
Waste Activity
RCRA Large Quantity Generators    3600
RCRA Facilities Subject to
  Corrective Action              910
RCRA Transporters               600
RCRA Small Quantity Generators    16000
CERCLA Inventory of Potential Sites  2020
Subtitle D Solid Waste Disposal Sites  2700
                                                       Please Select One:
                                                      1.  WILL LOG LISTING
                                                      2.  C01E LOG DIAC1AU
                                                      3.  CIEAI DIAGIAU AEEA
                                                      9.  QUIT
   EPA Region I in conjunction
with the State of Connecticut, has
developed a pilot project for
screening and ranking all waste-
related industrial sources. A com-
puter based Geographic Informa-
tion System (CIS) locates sources
(RCRA facilities, generators,
Superfund sites, etc.) and important
receptors (wells, population, wet-
lands, etc.). An analytical model
compares the environmental vulner-
ability of the site with the facility-
specific information (e.g. types of
chemicals, potential for release,
   The results of the ranking pro-
cess in Connecticut will be used as a
tool for coordinating state and EPA
regulatory activities in conducting
RCRA inspections and issuing per-
mits, for coordinating Superfund
and RCRA activities in cleaning up
sites, and for developing a common
data base of environmental informa-
tion collected during the study.
   Region 1 has been an active
participant in the national efforts
to promote the development of
strategic plans and risk assessment
techniques to identify and respond
to the most pressing environmental
problems within New England. We
hope to expand the Connecticut
pilot project to other states in the
region. This would provide  an
important management tool for
insuring that most significant envi-
ronmental problems receive the
attention of state and federal envi-
ronmental officials. ?f

                  Office  of Regional  Counsel
                  Enforcement Takes  Multi-Media Approach
Hurley Laing
       1 PA has begun to focus its
       I enforcement program on
an approach designed to increase
our deterrent effect and to address
the most significant environmental
problems. We have evolved proce-
dures during the past year which
help us develop '"multi-media"
cases. That is, we will be trying to
examine, at one time, all of the
regulatory requirements to which a
facility is subject, not just one. This
approach, while presenting man-
agement challenges, will increase
our focus on the total environmen-
tal impact of a facility, should help
avoid moving pollution around, and
will allow us to get higher penalties
and more comprehensive relief.
   In response to EPA's developing
focus on pollution prevention, we
are developing a set of policies and
procedures that will lead to en-
forcement case results with the
potential to reduce unregulated as
well as regulated discharges. An
example would be a case settle-
ment in which a company, in addi-
tion to paying a fine, agrees to con-
duct a facility-wide environment
audit which includes an examina-
tion of ways to reduce unregulated
toxic emissions reported in the
company's Toxic Release Inventory
   We are also working to con-
tinue the expansion of our criminal
enforcement capabilities. ?f-
                                                  Clean Water Act

                                                  Violations Prosecuted
                                                  Enforcement case against the
                                                  Dexter Company
                                                  The EPA and the state of Connecti-
                                                  cut have jointly brought a major
                                                  civil court enforcement action
                                                  against the Dexter Company in the
                                                  U.S. District Court in Connecticut.
                                                  The company is charged with nu-
                                                  merous violations of the Clean
                                                  Water Act at its paper plant in
                                                  Windsor Locks, Connecticut. This
                                                  is one of the largest enforcement
                                                  actions ever brought by EPA in
                                                  terms of the size of the company,
                                                  the number and severity of the
                                                  violations, and  the  multi-million-
                                                  dollar penalty being sought. The
                                                  case also is a good example of ef-
                                                  fective federal-state cooperation;
                                                  federal and state officials jointly
                                                  prosecuted this case.
Municipal Filtration
Plant to Ensure Clean
Drinking Water
Enforcement case against the city of
North Adams, Massachusetts
EPA's enforcement case against the
city of North Adams, Massachu-
setts passed an important mile-
stone during this past year. The
federal court rejected the city's
attempt to dismiss the federal case
in favor of a state court action. The
federal judge noted that the city
had failed for several years  to agree
to any binding settlement in the
state court case. The EPA brought
the federal case to make sure the
city moves forward and stays on
track in building a filtration plant
to ensure clean drinking water and
otherwise complies with the Safe
Drinking Water Act. The EPA is
also seeking a civil penalty  from

 the city in view of its past record of

 Toxic Metals and
 Dangerous Chemicals
 Discharged into Sewer
 Enforcement action against Borjohn
 Optical Technology, Inc.
 Borjohn Optical Technology, Inc.,
 of Burlington, Massachusetts, and
 its president, John Borowski, were
 convicted of illegally discharging
 toxic metals and dangerous chemi-
 cals into the sewer system and of
 endangering company employees
 as a result. This was the first time
 in the country an individual or a
 corporation has been convicted of
 knowing endangerment under the
 Clean Water Act. Borowski faces a
 maximum of 30 years in prison and
 a $500,000 fine, and his company
 faces a maximum two-million-dollar
 fine when it is sentenced this fall.

 Superfund Site
 Cleanup Costs
 Judgment at Picillo Superfund site
 based on prior state lawsuit
 On May 31,1990, the federal court
 in Rhode Island issued judgment
 finding American Cyanimid Com-
 pany and Rohm & Haas Company
 liable for the cost of cleaning up the
 Picillo Superfund Site in Coventry,
 Rhode  Island. The EPA claimed
 approximately $3,5 million in past
 costs plus future cleanup costs.
   The court based its ruling on a
 1989 decision, in which the same
 court found American Cyanimid
 and Rohm & Haas liable to the
 State of Rhode Island for costs
 incurred by the state at the Picillo
 site. The court's  ruling was issued
 as a summary judgment before
 trial, and the government will
 therefore be spared the consider-
able time and expense of a trial.
   The decision is important be-
cause it establishes a precedent for
EPA to recover site cleanup costs
based on prior enforcement actions
by states. State governments are
becoming increasingly involved in
hazardous waste site cleanups and
are exercising their enforcement
authority more often. The Picillo
decision allows EPA to take advan-
tage of the states' assistance in the
important and complex effort of
cleaning up hazardous waste sites,
without duplicating enforcement

Removal Cost

Recovery Settlement
During the course of the year, the
region settled numerous cost recov-
ery cases to recoup Superfund
money spent by the agency for
cleanup  action. One such settlement
related to an emergency removal
action at the Pine Street Canal in
Burlington, VT, the site of a former
coal gasification plant. EPA origi-
nally sued three present and past
owners and operators, who, in turn,
brought additional owners and op-
erators into the lawsuit. The settle-
ment calls for the defendants to pay
EPA a total of $945,000, which
represents 98.4 percent of the total
cost incurred by EPA. Other signifi-
cant settlements for removal actions
include the following:
Pufman Fire and Chemical
   Spill Site, CT—$950,000
Cooks Landfill, W—$415,000
Bourdeauhui, CT—$429,000

Region I's Focused

Effort on CERCLA
(Superfund) Cleanup
In the past year, ORC has taken
aggressive action to use the Com-
prehensive Environmental Re-
sponse Compensation and Liability
Act's (CERCLA's) special notice
enforcement procedures for
Superfund cleanups, which allows
for negotiation before court pro-
ceedings. In 1990, the region used
CERCLA's negotiation procedures at
ten Superfund sites as a means  of
achieving private performance of
remedial design and remedial ac-
tion. Moreover, in four cases in
which those negotiations have not
yielded a consensual agreement with
responsible parties, the region has
issued unilateral CERCLA orders to
compel private cleanups. All told,
the enforcement effort covers ten
cleanups worth approximately $180
million. This represents the region's
most focused and comprehensive
effort to use CERCLA's congression-
ally mandated cleanup enforcement
procedures.  ?f
Enforcement of Regulatory Statutes
Region I has long been committed
to a vigorous enforcement pro-
gram. A key measure of enforce-
ment efforts is the number of new
cases recommended for litigation,
or "referred," in a year. That num-
ber for civil judicial cases has
grown dramatically in recent years.
From fiscal year FY'85 to FY'87,
the number of civil referrals ranged
from sixteen to twenty-two; how-
ever, from 1988 to 1990, the num-
bers increased to range from thirty-
two to thirty-seven. Reflecting a
new priority for the agency's en-
forcement program, criminal en-
forcement has received signifi-
cantly greater attention in the re-

gion since 1988. In each of the last
three years, the region has referred
seven to eight new criminal cases
to the Department of Justice; prior
to 1988, the number usually never
exceeded two per year. In addition,
in every year since 1985, the region
has also initiated well over one
hundred administrative enforce-
ment actions. The trend has been
to maintain a strong level of ad-
ministrative enforcement, while
placing increased emphasis on
judicial enforcement, both civil
and criminal.

Since the enactment of Superfund in
late 1980, Region I has taken aggres-
sive and precedent-setting legal
actions to ensure that responsible
parties at New England Superfund
sites participate with EPA in ensur-
ing the expeditious cleanup of these
sites. Region 1 has established an
effective relationship with the poten-
tial responsible parties, resulting in
numerous multi-party, multi-
million-dollar settlements. As
Superfund enters its second decade
the region will continue to use  the
strong enforcement tools in the
statute to obtain settlements and
conserve fund money.  &•
    .P1  u  .!;  u
Using Strategic  Planning to
Develop  Priorities
To date, EPA's enforcement pro-
gram has been keyed to the sepa-
rately developed priorities of its
individual programs. There has
been little comprehensive strategic
planning in the development of
each year's priorities. The result
has been that, although we have
had significant individual successes
and a highly visible overall effort,
we have missed opportunities to
maximize the environmental im-
pact as well as the deterrent effect
of our enforcement effort. We
have not as yet developed mea-
sures of the success of our en-
forcement effort other than num-
bers of actions taken, amount of
fines collected, numbers of convic-
tions or amount of jail time
served. While these are necessary
management tools, they do not say
anything about actual environ-
mental benefit.
   We have recently developed a
set of ranked environmental priori-
ties as part of the region's Com-
parative Risk Project, and in cer-
tain areas, most notably in the wa-
ter program, we are doing a degree
of geographic enforcement target-
ing. Examples are the Merrimack
River in New Hampshire and Mas-
sachusetts and Casco Bay in Maine.
However, these efforts are limited,
and they do not involve all appro-
priate program areas.
   The challenge we face is devel-
oping an enforcement program that
is planned in a coordinated fashion
and involves all program areas. We
need to try to find places where
geographic targeting, industry tar-
geting and other coordinated ap-
proaches, including cooperative
approaches with the states, can
maximize the benefits of our en-
forcement efforts. The vehicle we
will use will be a four-year strategic
plan for the years 1992-1995. We
will attempt to involve the public
and the states in the development
of this plan. Our goal is to  have an
initial plan completed in December
of 1990 and also to develop an
ongoing process for review and
update of the plan. ?f

    ¥  'J
                   Julie Belaga presents awards to the 1990 Poem and Poster Contest winners. Fifteen hundred people were in attendance
                   at Boston's Park Plaza Hotel.
                   Office  of Public Affairs
                   Emphasis on the Individual
         I ogo, the cartoon char-
         acter, once said, "We
have met the enemy and they is
us." Twenty years ago, the environ-
mental movement tagged industry
as the 'bad guy' and looked no fur-
ther for culprits. Today, we are
realizing that we, as individuals, are
also part of the problem. But, we can
be a large part of the solution.
   Our overconsumptive lifestyle
and throwaway mentality have pro-
duced the biggest environmental
protection challenge yet. We drive
everywhere, water and mow our
lawns to death, eat vegetables nest-
ing in seemingly unnecessary pack-
aging, and buy disposable everything.
   While global warming and the
disappearing rain forest are enor-
mous environmental problems,
they are almost imponderable and
often leave us feeling overwhelmed
and powerless.
   But, individuals do have the
power to make  a difference
through how we choose to live our
lives. Choosing to use a glass mug
for morning coffee over a dispos-
able one helps. Choosing to carpool
helps. Choosing to recycle or buy
recycled paper helps.
   Turning off lights; turning
down the heat; avoiding
overpackaged products; walking or
taking public transportation; dig-
ging weeds out of the lawn instead
of spraying pesticides all over it —
all of these choices help.
                                                    How to Destroy the
                                                    This year the Office of Public Af-
                                                    fairs launched a public service
                                                    campaign, "How To Destroy the
                                                    Earth," designed to empower the
                                                    individual to make the best choice
                                                    for the environment.
                                                       Using humor and reverse psy-
                                                    chology to send the recycle, re-
                                                    duce, and reuse message, this tele-
                                                    vision, radio, print, and direct mar-
                                                    keting campaign suggested simple
   It is the goal of the Office of Pub-
lic Affairs not only to keep the public
informed on the "big stories" of the
day but to increase the public's
awareness of the choices that we
make every day that influence  the
environment in various ways.
Through public education and media
outreach, we try to keep people in-
formed of exactly how their actions
and attitudes make a difference. ?*•
                                 changes we can all make in our
                                 everyday lives.
                                    The public service advertising
                                 effort consisted of six 30-second
                                 television spots, six 60-second
                                 radio spots, print media ads, and
                                 an "affectionate size" 32-page
                                 "How To Destroy The Earth" bro-
                                 chure with a series of earth-wreck-
                                 ing tips. But, at the end of each ad
                                 and tip came the message "The
                                 Earth: if you want to save it, find
                                 out what you're doing to destroy

   The advertising agency
Cosmopulos, Crowley & Daly do-
nated their services to create, direct
and produce the campaign, and the
agency is very grateful to them.

Earth Day 1990
The office  coordinated the region's
Earth Day  celebration with:
?i;  an Earth Day Kick-off, which
   inspired EPA employees to be-
   come involved in the local cel-
   ebrations. Many employees vol-
   unteered to speak in schools and
   help with Earth Day events.
'•'''  an environmental speakers bu-
   reau, which received 150 re-
   quests for guest teachers in the
   schools and provided teacher
   training for EPA volunteers.
   the Environmental Masters
   Awards Ceremony. EPA pre-
   sented awards as part of the
   New England Enviro-Fest at the
   University of Massachusetts,
   Harbor  Campus. Hundreds of
   people attended the ceremony,
   and twelve distinguished New
   England environmentalists re-
   ceived awards. EPA also exhib-
   ited at the Enviro-Fest.
,r  an Earth Day walk for federal
   employees from the JFK Federal
   Building to the Boston Earth
   Day celebration on the Espla-
Tst  an open house at EPA's Labora-
   tory in Lexington, Massachu-
   setts. Nearly 200 people toured
   the region's lab, while EPA staff
   discussed and demonstrated
   emergency response, air and
   water quality monitoring, asbes-
   tos analyses, information man-
   agement, and other lab func-
H  the distribution of thousands of
   Earth Day posters, stickers and
   magnets, and "You Can Make A
   Difference" brochures.
The office sponsored the region's
eighteenth Elementary Education
Ecology Poem and Poster Program
(EEEPPP) in May and June, which
attracted more than 7,500 entries
from throughout New England.
Other environmental education
programs that have taken place
throughout the year include the
Adopt-A-School program, the
President's Environmental Youth
Awards (PEYA) program, and a
high school environmental essay
contest. In addition, OPA partici-
pated in a number of environmen-
tal conferences and forums
throughout the region.

Recognizing the powerful role that
the media play in shaping public
opinion and the public's need to be
informed about important environ-
mental issues, the Office of Public
Affairs wrote and released about
250 news releases throughout the
year. Regional events, such as the
Big River Reservoir veto, large
monetary enforcement settlements
with private corporations, signifi-
cant actions at federal Superfund
sites, and prison terms for polluters
were reported through news re-
leases to newspaper, magazine,
radio and television reporters. OPA
staff spoke regularly with reporters
at all of the major daily newspapers
in the area—the Boston Globe, the
Boston Herald, the Hartford Cou-
rant, the Providence Journal, the
New York Times, the Wall Street
Journal, and many important na-
tional news publications— Time,
Newsweek, and Business Week.
   Among the more than fifty in-
terviews arranged with the media
for senior management staff were
NBC's "Today," the Christian Sci-
ence Monitor's "One Norway
Street" and many more local televi-
sion and radio programs. For sig-
nificant events, decisions, and en-
forcement actions around the re-
gion, the office organized twenty
on-site news conferences.
   For the more than five hundred
daily and weekly newspapers in
New England, the office wrote and
published several op-ed pieces and
guest columns on such topics as
mercury-in-paint, pollution pre-
vention, the Clean Air Act, and
radon. This form of outreach serves
as a means to cover important en-
vironmental issues more compre-
hensively for general readers.
   As a companion to newspapers,
television, and radio as sources of
environmental news, the office
publishes a quarterly newsletter of
major activities in the region.
Called New England Environment,
the newsletter highlights enforce-
ment actions, reviews new and
pending legislation and policy, and
summarizes significant data affect-
ing the environment.

Freedom of

OPA's Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) Office responded to 1,856
requests, an increase of 27.5 per-
cent over last year.


Community Relations
For the residents in communities
where there is a federal Superfund
site, anxiety and concern is often
high. The Superfund Community
Relations Program seeks to keep an
open dialogue with community
residents,  to hear concerns, to dis-
cuss cleanup options,  or to review
risk assessments. EPA's increased
outreach efforts solicit their input

on decisions that may potentially
affect their health or the environ-
ment in their communities.
   EPA holds public meetings and
hearings, as well as informational
meetings with elected officials,
local community groups, planning
boards and various interest groups
in site communities so that citizens
and officials may learn, raise issues,
and ask questions about site devel-
opments. EPA distributes news
releases, informational updates,
and site-specific fact sheets to keep
local citizens apprised of
Superfund actions.
   The addition of nine New En-
gland military facilities to EPA's
Superfund list has provided a new
challenge in information sharing
for the agency. Federal military
installations tend to be larger, tech-
nically complex, with the potential
to affect a large  number of indi-
viduals and communities. The
residents surrounding these facili-
ties have a keen interest in under-
standing and participating in the
decisions leading to the cleanup of
hazardous waste sites on them.
   Seven Technical Assistance
Grants (TAG) were awarded to
citizen groups in communities
where there  is a Superfund site.
These grants may be used for hir-
ing independent experts to review
and comment on Superfund tech-
nical documents and to act as con-
sultants to the citizen groups. ?f
EPA exhibit at Earth Day Etwirofest.
   the Big River Reservoir decision,
vetoing the State of Rhode Island's
proposal to fill 650 acres of prime
wetland to create a drinking water
   the first-ever guilty verdicts in
the nation imposed under the
"knowing endangerment" provision
of the Clean Water Act. A
Burlington, Massachusetts company
and its president were found guilty
on all counts.
   designation of Casco and Massa-
chusetts Bays as national estuaries,
authorizing them for federal analy-
sis and funding.
   the longest jail term ever im-
posed in Massachusetts for Clean
Water Act violations. The president
of a Lowell, Massachusetts com-
pany was sentenced to fifteen
months in prison and ordered to
pay $60,000 to the City of Lowell.
   the largest penalty ($254,000) for
violation of hazardous waste export
laws in New England was proposed
against a Stratford, Connecticut
 aircraft engine manufacturer.
   Region 1's comments on the
draft environmental impact state-
ment  (DEIS) for Boston's  Central
Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel
   the agreement in principle
reached with AVX Corporation of
New York, NY, a major defendant
in the New Bedford Harbor (MA)
Superfund litigation. The  $66 mil-
lion payment represents one of the
largest settlements by a single de-
fendant in the ten-year history of
the Superfund program.
   the suit filed against United
Technologies Corp. of Hartford,
Connecticut for more than 100
violations of hazardous waste  laws.
In addition, the company was
charged with violating a prior con-
sent agreement. Penalties of up to
$25,000 per day per violation are
authorized under the law.
   Connecticut and Rhode Island's
achievement in  February as the first
two states in the country to gain
approval for their wellhead protec-
tion programs as required under the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
The regional office approved Massa-
chusetts' plan in March and those of
Vermont, New Hampshire, and
Maine in September,  making New
England the first region in the
country to have all wellhead protec-
tion plans approved under SDWA.
   Radon Testing Month was publi-
cized in February, Safe Drinking
Water Week was highlighted in the
spring, and National  Radon Action
Week was targeted in October.
   the suit filed against Solvents
Recovery System of New England, a
Superfund site in Southington, Con-
necticut, seeks penalties of up to
$25,000 for numerous violations to
environmental permits and hazard-
ous waste laws.  ?f-

Steve Ells
                  Office  of  GV/errimeirt  KfcktiUTfi  y_nr
                 Environmental Review
                 The Credibility to Match Our Responsibility
        Earlier this year, Barry
        Commoner asked how it
was that EPA, from its earliest
days, has been so captured by an
end-of-the-pipe, black-box, abate-
ment-focused regulatory philoso-
phy. In answering, 1 tried to re-
member the imperatives that drove
state and federal "pollution con-
trol" programs in the sixties. I re-
membered that the outrage ex-
pressed by Earth Day had been
building in many parts of our soci-
ety for ten years. Evidence that this
wave was  starting to crest could be
seen when, three months prior to
Earth Day, NEPA (the nation's first
pollution prevention statute) be-
came law. Earth Day had power to
bring about change because it
snapped into focus an accumulated,
multi-generational revulsion and
heightened its political imperative.
   The results of that imperative
were the Congressional transfor-
mations of the nation's moribund
pollution  control laws and the
creation of EPA. We at EPA were
told to be the shock troops and
small unofficial signs saying "Sue
the b- -    —s" hung in many offices
and proclaimed that the law was to
be our weapon. In 1970, Adminis-
trator Ruckelshaus, on the day of his
swearing-in and in his very first
message to the employees of the
brand new EPA, used the imagery of
aggression, command and control:
   "The President has established a
high priority for a major effort to
attack the many environmental
pollution  problems which face this
country. To spearhead this effort,
he has established the Environ-
mental  Protection Agency as the
first independent agency of this
   An impatient public demanded
action. A Democratic Congress
smelled blood. A Republican Presi-
dent, seeing his country almost
coming apart before his eyes, told
EPA to produce  results on the en-
vironmental front — and fast.
goal that the discharge of pollut-
ants into the navigable waters be
eliminated by 1985". People who
believe in pollution prevention
remember that as a lodestar. People
who didn't, or who were preoccu-
pied, dismissed it as merely a goal,
thus missing what it really was
driving at. Thus, the debate over
                                                 Fore River staging area in the Boston Harbor.
                                                    And so our priorities were filing
                                                 lawsuits, issuing tough permits,
                                                 and making many grants. Our
                                                 watchwords were: the carrot and
                                                 stick; to be firm but fair; to send a
                                                 message and deter similar conduct
                                                 elsewhere. But, as I remember it,
                                                 even then there was little agree-
                                                 ment on the overall strategy to use:
                                                 for example, both the President
                                                 and most of the states opposed the
                                                 passage of the Clean Water Act of
                                                 1972, and even the House and the
                                                 Senate disagreed as to what it meant.
                                                    Do you  remember the contro-
                                                 versy in 1972 over the Clean Water
                                                 Act's call for zero discharge by
                                                 1985? The law gave a clear pollu-
                                                 tion prevention direction; its very
                                                 first goal was "It is the national
                                pollution prevention isn't new —
                                it's recurring and Congress has
                                periodically expressed its displea-
                                sure with our singleminded and
                                seemingly bullheaded regulatory
                                fixation on abatement. But  we saw
                                abatement as our primary mission
                                and with justification: it wasn't
                                until the eighties that we got (most
                                of) the lumps out of the water, and
                                then realized that we had uncov-
                                ered a new regulatory horror: the
                                need to abate the discharge of toxic
                                   Always, however, there  was a
                                counterpoint within EPA to our
                                regulatory activities: we always
                                hoped that we could break  free
                                from today's demands and do more
                                to prevent tomorrow's problems.

 These regional efforts took many
 forms over the years, such as by
 doing impact statement reviews
 that urged less-polluting alterna-
 tives, by adopting regional water
 quality and land use policies that
 called for preservation of  high-
 quality lakes and streams and
 warned against future pollution, by
 enforcing the laws calling for pre-
 vention of significant degradation
 and preservation of existing uses,
 and by supporting public participa-
 tion and air and  water planning to
 help citizens plan for a non-pollut-
 ing future; and by other difficult
     It is admirable that EPA is now
 vocal in pushing pollution preven-
 tion. The "abaters" still want to
 prevent pollution; they've tried, but
 the system fights them. There's no
 inconsistency in theory between
 abatement and prevention (both
 are important, though prevention
 should have its turn in the sun) but
 there certainly is a conflict in prac-
 tice, in resources, and in politics. If
 pollution prevention is to become
 more than words on paper, it will
 require us, the Congress, and our
 constituencies to show more cour-
 age, wisdom and patience than we
 have in the past.  Our organization,
 culture and controlling statutes do
 not encourage or reward multi-
 media or preventative solutions to
 environmental problems. Political
 imperatives and the constant need
 to justify resources demand mea-
 surable actions and fast results. It's
 similar to the dilemma of the
 American corporation trying to do
 long-term research but fearing that
 what it needs to fend off a raider or
 please its shareholders is short-
 term profits.
   Thus, pollution prevention's
 technical problems are tough, but
 the institutional barriers are
    Here are some environmental
wishes for EPA on its twentieth
    I wish for us to have the cred-
ibility to match our responsibili-
ties; for risk information that re-
lieves people's fears; for a way to
have change that doesn't burden its
environs; for an economy that
doesn't thrive on waste.
    I wish for a land use ethic that
doesn't smear the land; and for the
Vermonts, the coasts of Maine, the
Nantuckets, and Whitton Ponds,
for all the small  places we love —
I wish that they  may yet escape the
tragedy of die commons.
    I wish for an end to disease
from urban lead, ozone-smog, and
radon gas; and for the courage to
change our dismaying new world
of acid rain, global climate shifts,
ozone holes, greenhouse gasses,
and rising sea levels.
   I wish for a government that
doesn't pollute; for a society averse
to the allure of pork barrel
projects; for an end to decisions
which shrug off the environment;
and for a stop to incremental losses
and perpetual rear guard actions.
   More than ever, I wish for a
nation that agrees on its environ-
mental future, not one bitterly
divided and partisan, but full of
hope. #•
The Government Relations Staff
furthers EPA's mission by inform-
ing the Congress and other elected
officials of EPA's priorities and
actions and by responding to their
concerns. The Government Rela-
tions staff is the principal link with
these officials, who have the respon-
sibility to satisfy themselves that
EPA is carrying out the laws they
enacted. Their informed judgment
and continued support is important
if the environment is to be pro-
   The information we give  to
them must be prompt, correct, and
absolutely nonpartisan. Issues in-
tensify and contacts increase dur-
ing election years. Therefore it is
crucial for the office to have  a net-
work of contacts to reach out and
inform key elected officials in a
timely manner and to follow a
planned notification process which
insures equity. It is the hope of our
office to support our divisions and
let them get on with their difficult
jobs of environmental protection.
   A number of bills pending in
Congress will have a major impact
on us and New England: the Clean
Air Act reauthorization; pollution
prevention legislation; Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) reauthorization; perhaps
the elevation of the Environmental
Protection Agency to Cabinet level;
and others. We will be working
with our divisions, with elected
officials and with state officials, as
some of the new federal laws will
require state action in order to
become fully effective.

The Environmental Review Staff
has been active in numerous im-
portant cases. We have sought, in
NEPA's twentieth birthday year, to
prevent significant or avoidable
environmental damage and to pro-
tect the integrity of the National
Environmental Policy Act process
of full disclosure and public ac-
countability on behalf of an envi-
ronmental ethic.
   This year our NEPA Review staff
has raised, in the face of contro-
versy, questions about projects af-
fecting the environment throughout
New England, such as the following:

  a proposal by the US Fish and
  Wildlife Service to commence a
  program of introducing chemi-
  cals into Lake Champlain to kill
  the plan to expand the Loon
  Mountain  Ski area to another
  mountain  in the White Moun-
  tain National Forest;
  Boston's mammoth Central Ar-
  tery/Third Harbor Tunnel
  project; and
  the absence of environmental
  impact statements on certain
  major highway construction.
   We are particularly proud of
the contributions NEPA has made
over the last dozen years towards
this year's preservation (through a
wetlands veto) of 700 acres of wet-
lands in Rhode Island's Big River
Valley and the recent deferral (by
Executive action) of oil leasing on
Georges Bank. Also, our earlier
work on the proposal to create a
civilian air cargo "hub" at the
Westover Air Base, which pro-
tected thousands of people in the
Chicopee area from nightly wake-
ups, became a precedent for recent
national action.
   If we could send one message
that would summarize the year's
activities, we would urge that
project managers take seriously the
National Environmental Policy Act
from the first stages of a major
project. Save time: plan for pollu-
tion prevention from the start. ?*•
Using the National Environmental
Policy Act to Prevent Pollution
          wenty years ago, the
        National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) was, as
Barry Commoner says, the nation's
first pollution prevention statute.
Directing the federal government
to follow a new ethic of the natural
order, NEPA requires that our gov-
ernment must use all practicable
means to prevent as well as to
eliminate pollution and must fulfill
the responsibilities of each genera-
tion as trustee of the environment
for succeeding generations.
   To enforce these brave and
lonely words, the Congress and the
courts devised a new way to make
the power of the government more
accountable to the people and their
environment: NEPA says that be-
fore any federal agency decides to
take any action (or to issue any
grant or permit) that significantly
affects the environment, that
agency must prepare and show the
people an environmental impact
statement  (an E1S) and must re-
spond to their concerns.
   NEPA's call for impact state-
ments touches two beliefs that run
deep in a free and feisty people:
"The truth shall make us free" and
"Show me." A good  EIS lays out
information on impacts and alter-
natives, allays citizen fears, checks
the federal agency's judgement,
and identifies an alternative that
prevents or eliminates harm. The
EIS process advocates disclosure
and protection and EIS comments
often favor simpler alternatives.
which are often cheaper and less
harmful. With the help of the
courts, NEPA has improved many
projects and has been present at the
deservedly early retirement of a few.
   Though NEPA has now ended
its second decade, the EIS process
still struggles to succeed. NEPA's
experiment of stating environmen-
tal ideals in a statute, attempting to
prevent pollution from occurring,
and then policing the decision
process by requiring that the truth
be told and the ideals followed, is
still bold. In  fact, NEPA has be-
come even more controversial as
sponsors of poor projects have
learned to resent NEPA's scrutiny.
Ideally, the effectiveness of NEPA
should depend more upon the
clarity of the voices that speak for
the environment than upon their
volume, but  these voices must be
strong enough to be heard.
   If NEPA in the 1990s is to do its
job of making government more
accountable  to the people and
through them more protective of
the environment, NEPA must get
renewed support from those of you
who support its ideals and the EIS
process. During the next decade,
with your help, we want to see all
federal agencies become committed
to a strong NEPA based on truthful
disclosure of impacts and alterna-
tives, public  participation, and an
ethic that impels the selection of
the alternative that prevents or
eliminates damage to the environ-
ment. ?f

 Ed Conley
                   Environmental  Services  Division
                   Monitoring and Data Gathering More Important than Ever
            ' hen we consider
           'that regulatory pro-
grams have been in place and oper-
ated for some years at a cost esti-
mated to exceed 70 billion dollars
annually, it becomes apparent that
monitoring and data management
are more important than ever.
While data gathering might not be
glamorous, it is essential to govern-
ment, the regulated community,
and the public if we are to make
objective evaluations of our na-
tional environmental policies.
   Traditionally, monitoring ac-
tivities have tended to be media
specific and local in their scope
and impact, for example, water
long-term monitoring programs
that will assess the status of eco-
logical resources and our overall
progress toward mitigating or pre-
venting ecological effects.
   The agency is facing this chal-
lenge now and is developing a pro-
gram that will monitor ecological
status and trends. Ideally it will
help identify emerging problems
before they reach crisis proportions
and allow time for reasoned and
balanced solutions.
   The Environmental Services
Division, located at our lab site in
Lexington, Massachusetts, is a
service branch to all EPA pro-
grams. ESD  offers technical and
Patti Tyler and
Linda Martensen,
biologists, prepare
food for freshwater
quality surveys in a river basin or
sue specific monitoring for en-
forcement purposes. These efforts
must continue, but we need more
if we are to improve our ability to
document the condition of our
environment. We must develop
analytical services as well a^ emer-
gency response capability at sites at
which there may be an imminent
hazard. This section details the
specific program areas by environ-
mental medium where the lab has
provided needed services.  ?f
Air Activities
The Ambient Air and Emission
Monitoring Section approved air
monitoring network modifications
in the six New England states for
ozone, particulates, and carbon
monoxide; conducted in-depth
audits of the New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, and Vermont air
monitoring programs; processed
more than 1.5 million data points
of air quality information; and
analyzed ozone data for state
implementation plans. The section
observed approximately thirty
emission tests at a variety of
sources and reviewed twenty ex-
cess emission reports. Forty-six
Superfund documents and two
RCRA documents were reviewed
and evaluated for air monitoring;
ten air toxics monitoring studies
were conducted at Superfund sites
and for emergency response; and
i he section participated in and
conducted sampling for a Title 111
Safety Inspection.

Biological Activities
The Biology Section has made n
major investment in equipment,
methodologies, culture, and testing
of marine and freshwater lesi or-
ganisms. Chuinpia panuilii, a ma-
rine alga, is now being used for
toxicity testing as well as the tresh-
water alga Selenastinni capi'i-
cornutum. Toxicity tests were con-
ducted on contaminated sediments
and efforts in this area are seen to
increase in the future. Sediment
oxygen demand studies were con-
ducted in three Connecticut har-

bors for wasteload allocation deci-
sion making. In addition to toxicity
testing, some 250 bulk insulation
and dust samples were analyzed
using polarized light microscopy
with dispersion staining, and expert
courtroom testimony was given in
several NESHAPS enforcement cases.

Chemical Activities
More than 2,000 samples from 239
different sites were analyzed this
past year. This includes metals,
nutrients, PCBs, cyanides, pesti-
cides, and semi-volatile and volatile
organics in support of various pro-
grams. Last year, the laboratory
computerized its gas chromatogra-
phy and expanded its air toxics to
include XAD/PWF and canister
techniques. Training and certifica-
tion for state laboratories are also

Chemical Emergency
Preparedness Program
 - Title III Activities
The Title III Program Office is
responsible for overseeing Emer-
gency Planning and Accident Pre-
vention Programs conducting tech-
nical assistance, outreach, chemical
safety audits, and enforcement. A
sampling of the forty-eight techni-
cal assistance projects that were
conducted this year includes con-
tingency plan reviews, community
hazards analyses, and operations
reviews of Local Emergency Plan-
ning Committees (LEPCs). As  part
of its ongoing outreach efforts  the
Title III office offered training
courses to industry and govern-
ment on computer management of
emergency operations and various
other planning and response top-
ics. A total of ten chemical emer-
gency simulations were conducted
to test public response capabilities.
Forty-two Accidental Release in-
vestigations were issued and as a
Nathan Raines, chemist, weighs soil in preparation for analysis.
follow-up, four Comprehensive
Chemical Safety Audits were con-
ducted at industrial facilities hav-
ing a high potential for chemical
accidents. Title III inspectors con-
ducted forty compliance investiga-
tions this year. Approximately
$588,000 in penalties have been
issued by the Title 111 Program
Office since October 1988.

Oil and Hazardous

Our emergency response program
responded to more than sixty oil
and chemical spills and worked
closely with the  U.S. Coast Guard
on major marine spills which oc-
curred in Buzzards Bay this year. In
an ongoing effort to avert major
chemical accidents, the Title III
program conducted facility audits
of four potential problem chemical
facilities and issued four civil com-
plaints to chemical companies for
various reporting violations. More
importantly, assistance to state and
local governments in the form of
simulations and contingency plan
enhancement including chemical
accident safety training occurred in
over fifty cities and towns in the
   In the Superfund program, we
issued administrative orders to
potentially responsible parties to
conduct removal activities at nine
hazardous waste sites and funded
an additional twelve removal ac-
tions which resulted in mitigating
immediate public health threats
such as contaminated drinking
water and direct contact with mer-
cury, and exposure to PCBs, pesti-
cides, and corrosives. These totals
represent an unprecedented propor-
tion of enforcement actions requir-
ing removal actions by potentially
responsible parties with which we
have had 100 percent compliance.

Water Activities
The Environmental Studies Section
completed forty-eight NPDES di-
rect discharge inspections plus
nineteen inspections for the pre-
treatment program. Contributing
to the Merrimack River initiative,
the section provided field and lo-
gistical support for testing chronic
toxicity from twenty-two dis-
charges. This section conducted a
two-week study near Portland Har-
bor as part of the Casco Bay initia-
tive. Analyses included dye studies,
physical/chemical field measure-
ments and acute toxicity testing at
four POTW's (privately owned
treatment works).
   Extensive field efforts were
made at the Nyanza Superfund site
in Ashland, Massachusetts, and
Carroll Products in Wood River

Junction, Rhode Island. Investigative
efforts led to criminal convictions in
the case against Wells Metal Finish-
ing, Lowell, Massachusetts.

Quality Assurance
The Quality Assurance (QA) Office
provides technical review and com-
ments on QA documents and con-
ducts laboratory audits developed
by EPA programs, states, and EPA
contractors. This process enhances
the environmental data collection
activities and ensures that the data
collected is of known quality.
    The QA office  conducted two
field audits, reviewed seventeen
QA work plans for the Superfund
program, and reviewed three RCRA
         significant problem fac-
           ing the  Environmental
Services Division (ESD) is the iden-
tification and quantification of a
multitude of volatile organic com-
pounds which may be in the ambi-
ent air surrounding  hazardous
waste sites or industrial sources.
Because these compounds are
present in trace amounts (in the
parts per billion range), the sam-
pling and analysis of these com-
pounds requires meticulous atten-
tion to detail and sophisticated
equipment. Sampling is further
complicated by the diversity of
responses from these chemicals
and potential interferences ranging
from the humidity in the air to
artifact formation on the sampling
media. Accurate information is
critical for the risk assessment pro-
cess and to ensure the protection of
the public health.
    Currently ESD is developing
and implementing monitoring and
analysis capabilities  for real time
enforcement-related facility QA
Plans. For the water program, the
office reviewed plans for six bay
study projects and one Boston Har-
bor project. They also conducted
two state drinking water laboratory
inspections for certification under
the Safe Drinking Water Act
   The Quality Assurance Office
performed  eight laboratory audits
in support  of the Superfund Con-
tract Laboratory Program (CLP)
and two field laboratory audits in
support of  Superfund enforcement
activities during FY90. Addition-
ally, in support of the  Region I
Superfund  Data Validation Pro-
gram, the division completed
twelve oversight audits of contrac-
tor performance.  ?f
measurements using field chro-
matographs and for time weighted
averages using carbon and/or
Tenax absorption and passivated
canisters with gas chromatography/
mass spectrometry. These methods
generally measure volatile organic
compounds which are nonpolar
and nonreactive and have boiling
points in the range of -15° to
120°C. These methods are able to
measure organic compounds in the
parts per billion range.
   Sampling has been conducted
primarily at hazardous waste sites,
in homes surrounding these sites,
or during chemical spills. A few
studies have concentrated on in-
dustrial and urban impacts. Results
have played a significant role in
determining the amount and type
of remedy, where and when to re-
quire evacuations, and in the pro-
tection of workers on site. ESD has
also taken an active role in provid-
ing technical assistance to the
states and in conducting training
activities. We have been an active
participant in the National Air
Toxics Monitoring Program work-
ing closely with EPA Headquarters
and the Office of Research and
    Toxics air monitoring will play
an increasingly valuable role in
ESD's future. Activities, such as our
current participation with the Of-
fice of Research and Development
in the field testing of prototype
samplers at Superfund sites in
Region I and our involvement with
several national task force
workgroups, will enable ESD to
continue in a leadership role in the
air  toxics field. EPA's decision to
perform more  on-site waste treat-
ment at Superfund sites will re-
quire expanded air monitoring,
particularly on emission sources,
such as incinerators and air strip-
pers. The public is demanding
more information on the impact of
air  toxics from industrial and waste
processing sources because of its
increased awareness of toxics emis-
sions. The challenge is to develop
equipment and techniques that will
meet these demands and expecta-
tions. ?£
Deborah Thiem, chemist, fills vials
for gas chromatograpln/ analysis.

                   Planning and Management  Division
Patricia L.
A New Way of Thinking
        pollution prevention is
      "more than a new term: it is
a new way of thinking. Anticipating
and avoiding the generation of pol-
lutants is our ticket to advancing
beyond the diminishing returns of
pollution treatment and control. We
need to build an ethic of preventing
pollution into every situation where
there is the potential to create pollu-
tion: not only in industry and manu-
facturing, but also in public and
private business, government, com-
munities, and individuals.
   Regulations and economic in-
centives will not break down all the
institutional and cultural barriers to
preventing pollution in each  of
these sectors. What we need is a
profound cultural change—in our
attitudes, systems, and the way we
do things. EPA must reach beyond
its traditional regulatory role and
promote this cultural change
through outreach, education, and
technology transfer.
   While reaching out, EPA must
also look inward to ensure that we
incorporate the pollution preven-
tion philosophy in all of our deci-
sion-making processes and day-to-
day business. Everyone—from EPA
staff to planners to heads of corpo-
rations—has a part to play in making
the environmental gains promised by
pollution prevention a reality. ?f
                   Geographic Information Systems... helping
                   EPA Show the Environmental "Big Picture
                   The compliance, monitoring, per-
                   mit, and enforcement data collected
                   by Region I program offices repre-
                   sents a major investment in envi-
                   ronmental information. The analy-
                   sis necessary to draw meaningful
                   conclusions and to support pro-
                              grammatic decisions
                              and strategies is often
                              difficult when the
                              nature of the informa-
                              tion involves multi-
                              year trends or re-
                              quires integration of
                              air, water, and land
                              programs. Tools and
                              technology now exist
                              to make better use of
                              the data collected by
                              EPA as well as by
        NEW  INGtAND
                   state and local environmental orga-
                      New visualization technologies,
                   working in conjunction with tradi-
                                 tional automated databases, now
                                 allow us to manipulate data in the
                                 form of maps and other graphic
                                 images and can provide powerful
                                 new tools for analyzing and com-
                                 municating complex relationships,
                                 trends, and problems. Central to
                                 this process are Geographic Infor-
                                 mation Systems, which allow the
                                 storage and manipulation of spatial
                                 data along with traditionally col-
                                 lected attribute information. A
                                 Geographic Information System, for
                                 example, enables a hydrogeologist
                                 not only to review specific well data
                                 but to see well locations together
                                 with an  image of the ground surface,
                                 nearby rivers and streams, and po-
                                 tential contamination sites.
                                   Two other technologies, remote
                                 sensing and Global Positional Sys-
                                 tems, are important sources of data
                                 for environmental visualization.
                                 Each of  these provides the key ele-
ment of location necessary to com-
bine our existing environmental
information into images or pictures.
These new tools can deliver vital
new capabilities to make full use of
our environmental information.

Initially implemented as a carefully
evaluated pilot program, Voicemail
or AUDIX will soon be installed on
most employees' phones. AUDIX is
an electronic message system that
provides an effective way to ex-
change inlormation via telephone
without requiring simultaneous
participation by caller and receiver.
Studies show that more  than 50
percent of all business calls fail to
reach the intended person on the
first try and 70 percent are made
only to relay information.
   Unlike an answering machine
AUDIX allows a great deal of con-
trol by both the people sending and
receiving voice messages. The
sender can record, review, and edit
a message and then send it to a
single person or a group of people.
Time problems will be helped,
because AUDIX allows people in
different time zones to communi-
cate more efficiently. After a mes-
sage has been sent, the sender can
use AUDIX to check whether it has
been received and accessed. The
person receiving the message gets
useful information about the time
and originator of the call and can
check on  messages from a remote
location. The receiver can then
reply to the message or forward it
to someone else.

Strategic  Planning
EPA has embarked on an ambitious
strategic planning process. Region 1
participated as one of three  pilot

 regions in the FY'92 planning cycle.
 We developed a plan that set pri-
 orities for FY'92 using the results of
 our Comparative Risk Project as a
 starting point. (The Comparative
 Risk Project was an analysis of 24
 different environmental problems
 in New England undertaken to
 determine which posed the greatest
 health and ecological risks and
 societal costs.)  In 1991 Region I
 will be preparing a four-year strate-
 gic plan for FY  1993-1996. EPA is
 hopeful that this new process will
 help assure that risk information and
 opportunities for risk reduction are
 taken into account more compre-
 hensively. Through strategic plan-
 ning EPA hopes to influence the
 budget process, so that the budget
 we receive from Congress reflects
 our top priorities.

 Mail Operations
 The month of April brought two
 major changes to our regional mail
 operations. We converted to mail
 metering and contracted with Na-
 tional Industries for the Severely
 Handicapped to provide mail ser-
 vices. Operations ran smoothly with
 exceptional service during the transi-
 tion, and they continue to do so.

 Region I's recycling program has
 expanded significantly in the past
 year. The volume  of paper recycled
 has steadily increased to the cur-
 rent level of about 1400 pounds  per
 week. This spring, as part of EPA's
 Earth Day activities, the program
 reached out to all  employees with
 the distribution of recycling baskets
 to every work station. The region's
 cleanup associated with the move
 out of the JFK Building produced
 an additional eleven tons. All paper
 purchased for use in the office—
 stationery, xeroxing paper, and
 paper for printed brochures
 now recycled paper.
           A related effort to recycle empty
        soda containers has also been suc-
        cessful. Empty containers are col-
        lected at locations throughout the
        office and returned to a local super-
        market. The deposit refunds are then
        donated to the Pine Street Inn, a
        shelter for the homeless in Boston.

        EPA Offices Move
        Region I and GSA have been plan-
        ning for a move from the JFK
        Building to One Congress Street
        since early last year. Five hundred
        and fifty employees moved in Au-
        gust to a new facility, which con-
        tains 136 individual offices,  new
        furniture, a variety of conference
        space and records centers, and
        modern information management
        systems. Two floors high, divided by
        an atrium that is 14 feet wide and
        several hundred feet long, the new
        building provides a comfortable
        workplace filled with natural light.

        IFMS Implementation
        The Integrated Financial Manage-
        ment System (IFMS), a completely
        new agency-wide accounting system,
        was implemented in March 1989. A
        lot of very hard work and many
        frustrating hours were spent by the
        Comptroller's Office during this
        implementation. The Finance Sec-
        tion experienced a 50 percent staff
                                  turnover yet was able to restaff and
                                  attain IFMS expertise without reduc-
                                  ing financial services to our clients.
                                     IFMS has received software
                                  upgrades since the system was
                                  implemented. One major help was
                                  the improvement of data entry and
                                  query response time. As IFMS con-
                                  tinues to improve, Region I has
                                  taken the opportunity to partici-
                                  pate, and at times, to lead in pilot
                                  efforts to implement other IFMS
                                  modules such as Accounts Receiv-
                                  able and Reporting.

                                  Regional and National
                                  Training Programs
                                  The number of training offerings
                                  and requirements is growing to
                                  keep up with the expanding EPA
                                  staff (which jumped dramatically
                                  from 270 in FY"82 to 700 in
                                  FT90), and we have established a
                                  committee to review all regional
                                  and national training initiatives.
                                  This committee is chaired by a
                                  senior executive and comprised of
                                  representatives from each division,
                                  the secretarial advisory council,
                                  and the training office. This is the
                                  first time that the region has at-
                                  tempted to provide a comprehen-
                                  sive management overview to focus
                                  on training priorities, resources,
                                  and regional policies. *
          his past decade has
        witnessed some of the
biggest advances in information
technology. Personal computers
have brought the power to acquire
and manage information to every
desktop. We are now in an age
when data, independent of its source
and media, can be freely accessed,
across geographical boundaries and
system platforms. Policy makers
now have at their disposal a wide
variety of tools to help acquire and
analyze information.
   A number of thorny issues will
need to be resolved to turn all of this
technology and data into usable infor-
mation: we must find ways to help
users navigate more easily through
the mass of available data. We will
also be working toward defining com-
mon data standards and data quality
so that we can readily share informa-
tion between organizations, fa

The 1990 summer
interns with
program directors,
James Younger, Allin
Bond, and Jim Owens.
James Younger
                                                     iignts  HBL  urjjan  Airanj
Office of Cm
Strengthening an Aggressive Regional Affirmative Action Program
          he recent appointment
        of a full-time director to
the Office of Civil Rights and Ur-
ban Affairs has further strength-
ened an aggressive regional affir-
mative action program.
   The Office of Civil Rights and
Urban Affairs has the prime re-
sponsibility for administering and
monitoring policies, rules, laws,
and regulations that assure non-
discrimination in the employment
of women, Asians, Blacks, Hispan-
ics, and those with handicaps.
These monitoring activities also
include overseeing all EPA con-
tracting and EPA financially as-
sisted programs.
   This responsibility encompasses
both the internal and external ac-
tivities of the agency. The internal
focus of the office will be strength-
ened by the collaborative effort of
the special emphasis programs and
managers, such as the Black Em-
ployment Program, Hispanic Em-
ployment Program, and the Federal
Women's Program. These pro-
grams are charged with the respon-
sibilities of implementing various
civil rights, equal employment
opportunity, and affirmative action
   The external focus centers on
working with racial  and ethnic
groups and low income urban
communities to convey EPA and
regional employment opportuni-
ties. This includes providing mi-
nority contractors with related
training and information on how to
obtain grants, contracts, and other
needed assistance. By identifying
problems of interest to minority
groups and facilitating solutions to
those problems, we will be able to
establish a link between minority
groups and key Region I personnel.
An initiative such as the Summer
Intern Program, which brought 22
student interns, most from Histori-
cally Black Colleges and Universities,
to EPA for 12 weeks demonstrates a
successful example of the office's
internal and external focus. ?f

                                                    The civil rights agenda for the 1990s
                                                    will usher in many challenges and
                                                    opportunities. Recognizing that the
                                                    year 2000 will bring major changes
                                                    in the composition of the workforce
                                                    at EPA, the region must prepare to
                                                    address the following issues:
                                                        1) Providing training and sup-
                                                    port to managers/supervisors to
                                                    meet the needs of a culturally di-
                                                    verse workforce;
                                                        2) Enhancing the recruitment,
                                                    retention, development, and advan-
                                                    cement of current EPA employees;
                                                        3) Increasing economic oppor-
                                                    tunities for Asians, Blacks, Hispan-
                                                    ics, and women through aggressive
                                                        4) Establishing and creating
                                                    meaningful relationships in minor-
                                                    ity and low income urban commu-
                                 nities and promoting education
                                 and awareness to environmental
                                 problems and overall EPA and
                                 region resources.
                                    Of equal importance in the
                                 future to our agenda will be the
                                 need to broaden this effort of inclu-
                                 sion and diversity to low income
                                 and urban communities that may
                                 be adversely affected by, or at risk
                                 to, certain environmental hazards.
                                 Linkages with community-based
                                 organizations, agencies, and insti-
                                 tutions will be cultivated to in-
                                 crease urban environmental educa-
                                 tion as well as awareness to EPA
                                 programs and resources.
                                    We also see the need of creating
                                 within the region a better under-
                                 standing and awareness of this office
                                 and its goals and objectives. <*

Paul Keough
Deputy Regional
                         THE NEW ENGLAND
                   The  Shift
Paul Keough

 HI have been with EPA since the
  I early days of 1971 when the
regional office officially opened its
doors. Many changes have taken
place since that time, and nowhere
has that change been greater than
in the relationship between EPA
and the states.
   In the early 1970s few states
had organized active environmen-
tal agencies. Environmental activi-
ties were atomized among a num-
ber of different agencies and not a
part of a larger organization. There
were few comprehensive state stat-
utes dealing with pollution.
   Today, we find comprehensive
environmental agencies in all our
New England states. The officials
heading these agencies are consid-
                                    tate  Responsibility
ered key members of that state's
administration, and the environ-
mental agencies are as important as
any other office in state govern-
   All of our states have compre-
hensive environmental statutes that
cover a wide variety of environ-
mental problems—in fact, many of
these laws are more stringent and
comprehensive than federal statutes.
   In the early 1970s most of the
inspections, most of the enforce-
ment actions, most of the implemen-
tation of environmental programs in
the states were left to EPA. The fed-
eral government had more people,
more resources to do the job.
   That has changed dramatically.
The states now have far larger
staffs working for environmental
programs than does EPA. There are
more people working for the Mas-
sachusetts Department of Environ-
mental Protection, for example,
than are working in our regional
office, and we have six states to
   EPA's mission has changed over
the years from one of direct imple-
mentation of programs in the states
to one of oversight and technical
assistance. For example, it is the
states that do most of the inspec-
tions and take most of the enforce-
ment actions. We supplement these
actions with an aggressive enforce-
ment program of our own and are
heavily involved in carrying out a
criminal enforcement program.

   During the 1970s and 1980s the
emphasis by state and federal envi-
ronmental agencies was cleaning
pollution up at the end of the pipe-
   That focus has begun to shift as
both state agencies and EPA begin to
focus more on pollution preven-
tion—working to reduce the amount
of pollution being generated in the
first place through waste minimiza-
tion, recycling, etc. Clearly, this will
be the thrust for the 1990s.
   Fighting for resources to  sup-
port environmental programs has
always been a major task at both the
state and federal levels. Environ-
mental agencies have prospered for
the most part over the last five or
six years, but the problems of defi-
cits at the state and federal levels
have begun to cause problems.
That's why at both the state and
federal levels new ways of raising
revenues have been developed, and
new systems with revenues going
to support designated programs
have been put in place. Both at the
state and federal levels strategic
planning exercises have been un-
dertaken to make sure  limited
dollars are being put into projects
that can accomplish the most good,
where the greatest reduction in risk
to public health and the environ-
ment can be attained.
   With limited dollars available I
also see the states and federal gov-
ernment becoming increasingly
involved with public and private
partnerships. There are going to be
many environmental needs for
which there are no public dollars
available, such as construction of
drinking water filtration plants.
There may be opportunities for the
private sector to participate more
actively in such projects and to
work in partnership with local and
state governments.
   The federal/state relationship
has changed dramatically over the
years, but we can say without hesi-
tation that in New England we are
all working together to improve
and enhance the quality of our
environment. ?$•

Leslie Carothers, Commissioner
This past year was a very busy one
for the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection. It was
characterized by a significant reor-
ganization of DEP units to form a
more cohesive and efficient agency
structure. A bold report by the
Council on Environmental Quality
reviewed the regulatory responsi-
bilities levied on the DEP, balanced
these against the financial and per-
sonnel limitations imposed, and
found—to no one's surprise—that
the DEP was under-staffed and
under-funded. The Council on
Environmental Quality recom-
mended that legislative action be
taken to remedy this and it did
with the introduction of a new fees
bill. And finally, the celebration of
Earth Day 20 brought about a
refocusing of all the state's efforts
to meet  the environmental chal-
lenges of the next decade.

Earth Day 20
The DEP was involved in the coor-
dination of Earth Day activities
throughout the state, as nearly all
of Connecticut's 169 towns, and
many other environmental groups
joined together to reaffirm a com-
mitment to stewardship to our
state and our planet. Highlights of
the Earth Day weekend were a visit
from a delegation of Soviet envi-
ronmentalists to commemorate the
catastrophe at Chernobyl and to
pledge international cooperation in
addressing nuclear problems; a
star-studded evening of local celeb-
rities, hosted by Joanne Wood-
ward, to raise funds for environ-
mental programs; and a visit from
Senator Gaylord Nelson—often
referred  to as the founder of Earth
Day, 1970—who reviewed the past
Responding to the growing envi-
ronmental challenges in Connecti-
cut, on July 18, 1989, after a long
meticulous selection process, DEP
Commissioner Leslie Carothers
announced seven appointments to
the newly created positions of Bu-
reau Chief.
   "Five of these appointees," said
Commissioner Carothers, "are
veteran managers whose talents
and commitment to the DEP's mis-
sion are well known. The two new
people bring diverse environmental
and governmental background to
the department and will help to
strengthen the ties between the
regulatory and resource manage-
ment work of the DEP."
   The new bureau chiefs are as
follows: Richard Barlow, Bureau of
Waste Management; Richard
Clifford, Bureau of Parks and For-
ests; Adrian Freund, Bureau of
Water Management; Robert A.
Jones, Bureau of Air Management;
20 years and offered encourage-
ment toward moving into the fu-
ture. A special Earth Day issue of
Connecticut Environment, the
DEP's highly regarded monthly
magazine, was published.
Hugo F. Thomas, Bureau of Envi-
ronmental Services; and Leslie
Whitham, Bureau of Management
Operations and Services.

Clean Water Enforcement
More than $1.6 million was assessed
against polluters of Connecticut
waters in FY'89. This record level of
fines reflects the vigor with which
violators of the clean water laws are
being discovered by the DEP and
prosecuted by the Attorney General.
   "We are cracking down on pol-
luters as a team," said Attorney
General Clarine Nardine Riddle.
   To put this into perspective, the
total penalties assessed in 1986 to-
talled only about $100,000. In 1987,
this figure zoomed to $400,000. In
1988, when Commissioner
Carothers and Attorney General
Riddle began their enforcement
push, this figure reached the $ 1
million mark. In FY'89, the figure
has continued to climb to $1.6 mil-
lion. Clearly, this reflects the DEP's
increasing emphasis on enforcement.
Funding Fees for
Environmental Programs
In response to the recent report
from the Council on Environmental
Quality, in which it was clearly
pointed out that the DEP has not
had sufficient funds to adequately
fulfill its environmental mandate,
significant new legislation has been
passed in this General Assembly to
obtain new sources of funds. Two
separate funds were established: the
Environmental Quality Fund, and
the Conservation Fund. The first
will draw funds from a variety of
permit, annual inspection, and reg-
istration fees. The second will draw
funds from new or increased fees
from a variety of park, fisheries, and
wildlife fees. These funds will enable
the DEP to hire seventy-three addi-
tional staff.
   We are proud of the progress we
have made. We look forward with
enthusiasm and confidence to meet-
ing the environmental challenges of
the coming decade.  ?$•

Dean C. Marriott,

DEP's Bureau of Land Quality Con-
trol developed regulations this year
for the protection of wetlands un-
der the Natural Resources Protec-
tion Act. The new regulations ex-
plicitly recognize that Maine's wet-
lands differ according to area,
value, and function, and they es-
tablish appropriate  guidelines for
each type of wetland. The regula-
tions allow the denial of projects
where there are alternatives to
wetland alteration or for which
impacts would be unreasonable
based on a number of criteria.
These criteria include the value of
the wetland, the cumulative im-
pacts of frequent minor alterations
of wetlands, and impacts on signifi-
cant wildlife habitat.
Underground Tanks
The department and industry rep-
resentatives worked together to
develop a program that would ad-
dress the problem of obtaining
liability insurance coverage for
underground oil storage facilities.
As a result, the legislature in April
1990 amended Maine's Under-
ground Oil Storage Law to estab-
lish a fund to assist owners of un-
derground oil storage tanks who
are in substantial compliance with
the law. The fund is financed by an
increase in the per-barrel fee for
transfers of gasoline and other oil
products by oil terminal facilities.
It will enable owners and operators
to meet the federal insurance re-
quirements for their facilities and is
expected to ensure adequate funds
to facilitate remediation of con-
taminated sites.

Air License  Fees
In 1989 the Bureau of Air Quality
Control proposed a new system of
air emission  license fees based on
dollars per ton of licensed pollut-
ant emitted,  similar to the fee sys-
tem proposed in the Clean Air Act
Amendments. The proposal was
designed to ensure adequate fund-
ing of air quality programs and
planned bureau initiatives. Al-
though unsuccessful during the
114th session of the Maine Legisla-
ture, the department intends to
reintroduce the bill at the next
legislative session.

Solid Waste
Recently enacted legislation clari-
fied the lines of responsibility for
solid waste management in Maine.
The new Waste Management
Agency, which operates indepen-
dently of the Department of Envi-
ronmental Protection, will under-
take the screening and selection of
solid waste disposal sites and assist
municipal and regional recycling
    The DEP's Bureau of Solid
Waste Management continues to be
responsible for siting, constructing,
and managing a range of solid
waste facilities and has imple-
mented comprehensive provisions
to its rules governing these activi-
ties. The bureau  is also overseeing
a major effort to  close and
remediate unacceptable solid waste
landfills and to provide partial
funding to qualified municipalities
involved in this effort.

Water Quality
In response to a DEP report de-
scribing the problems caused by
the continuing presence of color,
odor,  and foam in Maine waters, a
bill was passed by the 114th Legis-
lature mandating reduction. It sets
limits for the discharge of color
from kraft pulp and paper mills in
the state. The limits, scheduled to
become effective in  1993, are de-
signed to help achieve full public
use of Maine's rivers by cutting the
amount of color discharged by
about forty percent.

Looking  Ahead a Decade
Every day thousands of chemical
substances are dumped into the air
we breathe. And  there is growing
public concern over the short-term
and chronic health effects of air
pollutants in the environment.
Responding to this concern, the
Bureau of Air Quality Control has
established an air toxics inventory
and ranking system to prioritize
program development in this area.
In the years ahead, the bureau will
be developing administrative rules,
defining control programs, estab-
lishing emission and air quality
standards, and collecting back-
ground information on these toxic
air pollutants.
John DeVillars, Secretary

Open Space
In 1989, Massachusetts invested
more than $30 million in the pres-
ervation of watersheds, coastal
areas, farmland, riverways, local
conservation lands and other natu-
ral resources; assets that without
state aid might well have joined the
rolls of countless acres lost to de-

Boston Harbor Cleanup
The Massachusetts Water Re-
sources  Authority has proceeded at
a record pace and below budget in
charting the awesome task of
cleaning Boston Harbor. As the
project continues its success will
depend  on the cooperation of state
environmental officials, legislative
leaders,  and the communities that
it both serves and depends upon.

Reinforcing the Commonwealth's
leadership in recycling, Secretary
DeVillars in May announced a
sweeping Solid Waste Master Plan
that requires a forty-six percent
recyclable rate by the year 2000.

 Through recycling, the state is in
 the position of preserving not only
 the environment but jobs as well.
 Permit Reform
 The Department of Environmental
 Protection instituted a system of
 reforms in order to streamline the
 permitting process. The new pro-
 gram allows permitees to file with
 greater ease and less bureaucracy
 and even comes with a money-back
 guarantee should the application not
 be considered in a timely fashion.
 Under the direction of Secretary
 DeVillars, an environmental strike
 force was established to actively
 pursue the most egregious violators
 of the Commonwealth's tough
 environmental laws. Using existing
 staff in both the environmental
 agencies as well as the state Attor-
 ney General's Office, the Strike
 Force has had phenomenal success
 in charging and prosecuting those
 who violate the law.
 Coastal Regulations
 Massachusetts announced new
 additions to the already stringent
 Chapter 91 regulations,  further
 protecting and enhancing the natu-
 ral life and commerce that is de-
 pendent on the Bay State's
 beaches and coastline.
 Looking a Decade Ahead
 Secretary DeVillars and the more
 than 3,500 employees of the envi-
 ronmental agencies have made
 across-the-board commitments to
 preserving and protecting the natu-
 ral landscape and heritage of this
 state for the future residents of the
 Commonwealth. From innovative
 programs to active enforcement,
 the Commonwealth's environmen-
tal agencies have charted a course
of action that will guarantee a su-
perior quality of life for generations
to come.
                                               Governor Judd
                                               Gregg announces
                                               a program of
                                               awarding state
                                               recycling grants to
New  Hampshire
Robert W. Varney, Commissioner

Solid Waste Management
Governor Judd Gregg initiated a
significant recycling program de-
signed to help address New
Hampshire's solid waste challenges.
The state has made $1.5 million
available for municipal recycling
grants. Municipalities and solid
waste districts may apply to the
state for up to fifty percent of ap-
proved costs for constructing recy-
cling collection, processing, and
storage facilities and for purchasing
recycling equipment. "A large  pro-
portion of the nearly 3000 tons of
solid waste generated daily in New
Hampshire is recyclable," said
Gregg. "These new funds will en-
courage communities with no recy-
cling program to begin one, while
permitting those with recycling
programs to expand and improve

Air Pollution Control
Air quality monitoring was ex-
panded into the western part of the
state with the establishment of
continuous monitoring stations in
Keene and Claremont. The DES
adopted rules controlling toxic air
emissions from industrial facilities
under the New Hampshire Air
Toxics Control Act.

Groundwater Protection
Remedial actions have been con-
ducted at a number of groundwater
contamination sites, many of
which have been identified through
DES's Underground Storage Tank
Program. For example, responsible
parties have agreed to a cash settle-
ment of $ 1.1 million for a new water
system in Lochmere, where several
wells were contaminated by gaso-
line. The settlement resulted from
over two years of hydrogeological
investigations and litigation.

 Rhode  Island

 Michael Annarummo, Director

 Wellhead Protection Program
 More than two thirds of Rhode
 Island's cities and towns utilize
 groundwater as the source of
 drinking water for their public
 water systems. In order to protect
 these water sources, the Depart-
 ment of Environmental Manage-
 ment has developed a wellhead
 protection program.
    As part of this new program, RI
 DEM will delineate groundwater
 areas that supply public systems.
 The suppliers will be required to
 identify pollution sources within
 these areas and to develop plans to
 protect groundwater within the
 wellhead area.
    The Department's groundwater
 staff will provide technical assistance
 in all aspects of the program but the
 program's success will depend on a
 close working relationship between
 DEM and municipal suppliers.

 Nonpoint Source
 Management Plan
 A comprehensive management
 plan has been developed to address
 specific sources of nonpoint source
 pollution in Rhode Island and to
 provide strategies for reducing
 pollution. Some of the major
 sources identified are urban runoff,
 failed septic systems, and recre-
 ational activities associated with
 marinas and mooring areas.
   An implementation plan in-
 cludes strengthening existing regu-
 latory programs, establishing new
 regulations, improving inspection
 and enforcement, encouraging
 municipalities to establish local
initiatives, refining assessment of
nonpoint sources of pollution,
strengthening public education
efforts to increase general aware-
ness of the problem, and improving
coordination between regulatory
and non-regulatory programs
within the Department of Environ-
mental Management.

Medical Waste
Rhode Island is participating in the
federal Medical Waste Tracking
Program. All regulated medical
waste generated in Rhode Island
must be handled according to rigid
regulations from the time of gen-
eration in a hospital or doctor's
office until the medical waste
reaches its ultimate destination at
an incinerator or landfill. EPA will
use this demonstration program to
prepare various reports to Con-
gress so that national medical
waste policies can be explored.
   Note: RI asked to be included in
this program, after medical waste
landed on a number of RI beaches
during the summer of 1988.

Narragansett Bay
Under a new policy nearly 4,000
acres of the upper bay waters of
Narragansett Bay will be re-opened
for shellfishing. This will allow
quahoggers to harvest shellfish
from the productive beds north of
Prudence Island for approximately
twice as many days each year. This
policy results from water quality
testing and analysis by the Division
of Water Resources that led to the
determination that only under
certain adverse conditions, when
rainfall exceeds one inch during a
twenty-four hour period or when
bypasses at sewage treatment
plants cause large amounts of raw
sewage to flow into the bay, will
shellfish beds be closed. In 1989,
more than 10,000 acres of the up-
per bay were closed to shellfishing
for 263 days.

In an effort to streamline the regu-
latory process and strengthen envi-
ronmental protection efforts, Gov-
ernor Edward D. DiPrete signed
legislation creating the Department
of the Environment.
   The new department will have
three regulatory branches—Envi-
ronmental Protection, Environ-
mental Management, and Coastal
Resources Management, which will
be headed by commissioners with
final authority over regulatory per-
mitting and enforcement decisions.
The director of the DOE will not be
involved in decisions on individual
regulatory permits or enforce.ment
matters involving the regulatory
branches. The director will, how-
ever, be free to both  advocate and
intervene in the process and will
retain the right to promulgate rales
and regulations.

Now in its second year, Rhode
Island's mandatory recycling pro-
gram for both commercial and
municipal waste is operating in
thirty-nine cities and towns.
Recyclables are sorted at a Materi-
als Recovery Facility and planners
in the state claim that as much as
twenty percent of all solid waste is
being recycled. Recycled items
include newspapers, assorted glass
bottles, plastic soda  and milk
bottles, aluminum and tin cans. A
pilot program to recycle corrugated
cardboard began in August 1990. *

Timothy Burke, Secretary

Comparing Risks
To ensure that Vermont's environ-
mental programs are addressing
the state's most serious problems,
the agency initiated the "Strategy
for Vermont's Third Century," a
comparative risk study much like
Region I's "Unfinished Business in
New England." Agency scientists
and staff from the Departments of
Health, Agriculture and Develop-
ment, and Community Affairs are
estimating the risks posed by
twenty environmental problems to
Vermont's ecosystems, human
health, and quality of life. The risk
reports will provide the basis for a
ranking of the problems at the end
of 1990 and the development of risk
management strategies in 1991.
   Because risk data alone cannot
make good public policy, an eigh-
teen-member public advisory com-
mittee selected the twenty prob-
lems for study and approved a set
of analytical criteria after hearing
from hundreds of citizens as well
as the state government's technical
teams. This fall, the advisory com-
mittee will rank the problems
based on scientific information and
an understanding of Vermonters'
values. EPA is financing the

Hazardous Waste
In 1990 the Vermont Legislature
enacted a comprehensive waste
reduction and hazardous waste
siting measure. The new law re-
quires Vermont generators of haz-
ardous wastes to review all pro-
cesses that result  in emissions,
discharges, or disposal of hazard-
ous materials and to develop a
comprehensive reuse and reduc-
tion plan. It establishes a state
planning and siting process de-
signed to provide necessary treat-
ment storage and disposal capacity
consistent with Vermont's commit-
ment to the Regional Capacity
Assurance Planning process. It also
requires on-the-shelf labelling of
hazardous consumer products.

Public Trust Doctrine
The public trust doctrine, derived
from English and Roman common
law, was recently interpreted to
include filled land that was once
under water. The Vermont Su-
preme Court ruled that 32 acres of
Lake Champlain waterfront land
owned by Central Vermont Rail-
way, Inc. and originally filled for
railroad construction, must only be
used for a public purpose with the
discontinuance of the rail service.
Chittenden Superior Court over-
turned an environmental permit
for construction of a marina in
Lake Champlain because the devel-
oper did not prove that the pro-
posed encroachment would serve a
public purpose. A legislative sum-
mer study committee was ap-
pointed to review these legal deci-
sions for their impact on state

regulator)' programs affecting water
withdrawals, in-stream encroach-
ments, and docks and mannas.

Growth Management Act—
One Year Later
Strong concerns about individual
property rights have prompted
some Vermont citizens to urge re-
peal of the statewide Growth Man-
agement Act that became law in
1989. Act 200 offers incentives for
towns to plan and lays out statewide
planning goals. About half of
Vermont's towns voted at a town
meeting on whether to support Act
200. Of the 122 towns that voted,
ninety-two voted no, fourteen voted
yes, and sixteen tabled the vote.
However, there is still widespread
support for local, regional, and state
planning. Most of the towns that
voted no are proceeding to create or
revise their town plan.

Three and a half years after the leg-
islature passed Vermont's wetlands
law, the Water Resources Board
adopted rules for the state's new
wetlands protection program. The
new rules designate wetlands on
federal resources maps as Class II
"significant" wetlands deserving
protection from development.
About forty percent of Vermont's
land area falls in the category of "sig-
nificant wetland." The rules allow for
compensatory mitigation, which
means a developer could impact a
wetland if s/he can re-create the
wetland's functions elsewhere.

Northern Forest Lands Study
The Northern Forest Lands Report,
a year-long congressionally funded
study, was released. It offers a plan
of action and strategies to protect
the working landscape of some 26
million acres of forestland through-
out  the Northeast.
Lake Champlain
A Citizens Advisory Committee on
Lake Champlain Future was cre-
ated and funded to serve as liaison
between the public and state agen-
cies that manage the lake. The
committee is charged with produc-
ing an annual State of the Lake
Report and recommending a man-
agement policy for the lake.

Funding for  Land Protection
The legislature approved $7.25
million for the state's Housing and
Conservation  Trust Fund, created
for critical housing and conserva-
tion projects.  State tax reimburse-
ment programs for forest and agri-
cultural lands were fully funded for
this fiscal year despite the state's
economic belt-tightening.
Governor's Commission on
Vermont's Economic Future
According to the commission's
report, entitled "Pathways to Pros-
perity," the state must develop an
economic strategy that will protect
"a future landscape that today's
Vermonters would recognize, and a
standard  of living that all of
tomorrow's Vermonters will cher-
ish." The report recommends pro-
tecting Act 250, Vermont's Land
Use and Development Law, as an
integral part of the state's economic
strategy, as well as the implementa-
tion of Act 200, the Growth Man-
agement Law. The commission
recommends protecting natural
resources and initiating new mea-
sures for  agriculture and forestry.

Financial  Overview
                                   Salaries and Expenses 6.5%

                                   Leaking Underground Storage Tank 1.2%

                                   Abatement, Control, and Compliance 8.3%

                                   Construction Grants 62.3%
                                  Leaking            Wastewater
              Salaries          Underground   Abatement  Treatment
                 and              Storage    Control & Construction   Total EPA
             Expenses   Superfund      Tank   Compliance     Grants   Region 1
 and Benefits   16,390,000





Grants to States


6,753,400    276,300

 360,300    19,700
 2,895,300    2,365,800     52,800
          10,531,100  3,313,500




 1,989,500            31,463,400


23,403,300            23,403,300

         189,910,100  189,910,100
19,870,900   65,940,400  3,662,300   25,392,800  189,910,100  304,776,500
                                                                                  Engineers 26%
                                                                                  Environmental 178,
                                                                                  Chemical 7.
                                                                                  Total 185.
Life Scientists 2%
Acquatic Biology 9,
Microbiology 2, Other 6.
Total 17.

Physical Scientists  12%
Environmental 52,  Geology 10,
Chemical 1 3, Hydrology 8.
Total: 83

Attorneys and
Paralegals 8%
Attorneys 51, Law  Clerks 4,
Paralegals 4.
Total: 83.

Protection 14%
Specialists 99.
Total: 99.

Technicians 0.2%
Engineering Technician 1,
Physical Science Technician 1.
Total: 2.

Support 17%
Finance 23, Personnel 13,
Computers 18, Grants 1 3,
Contracts 7, Management
and Program Analysis 1 7,
Public Affairs 10, Support
Services 17, Other 4.

Secretarial &
Clerical 20%
Secretarial and Clerical 143.
Total: 143
                                                                                  Total Number of
                                                                                  Employees: 710

For  Further Information
•    f you would like additional
    information about specific
EPA programs, please write the
Office of Public Affairs, U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, John
F. Kennedy Federal Building, Cam-
bridge Street, Boston, MA 02203,
or call (617) 565-3420, or visit us
at One Congress Street.
   The EPA library holds an exten-
sive list of environmental titles,
maintains a limited supply of EPA
publications, and coordinates the
distribution of environmental films
and videos.
   For extensive research, the EPA
library contains books, documents,
EPA reports, journals, and micro-
fiche reports about air, water, and
solid and hazardous waste issues.
An on-line computer system puts
the EPA at your fingertips provid-
ing an overview of the agency from
environmental laws and regula-
tions to organizational charts of the
agency headquarters in Washing-
ton and the ten regions throughout
the country. The library is located
at the EPA offices at One Congress
Street, Boston, on the llth floor.
Hours are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. For further
information, call the library at
(617) 565-3300.
   If you encounter an environ-
mental problem, report it first to
your local, and then state pollution
control agency at the telephone
numbers which follow. For specific
information about  EPA programs,
call the following EPA telephone
U.S. EPA, New England Office
   (Region I)       (617) 565-3420
Asbestos             (617) 565-3744
Air Division          (617)565-3800
Automobile Complaints
  Massachusetts      1-800-631-2700
  Other N.E.States     1-800-821-1237
Chemical and Oil Spills,
  24 hour number     (617) 223-7265
Government Relations  (617) 565-3414
Impact Statement Review (617) 565-3414
Lexington Lab        (617) 860-4300
Pesticides            (617) 565-3932
Pesticides Hot Line     1-800-858-73 78
Personnel            (617) 565-3719
Regional Counsel      (617) 565-3451
Title 111             (617)860-4385
Superfund           (617) 573-9610
  Storage Tanks      (617)573-9604
Waste Division        (617) 573-5700
Water Division        (617) 565-3478
  Permit Compliance   (617) 565-3493
  Surface Water Quality (617) 565-3544
  Drinking Water     (617)565-3610
  Groundwater       (617) 565-3610

New England State
Environmental Agencies
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection
165 Capital Ave.
Hartford, CT 06106
(203) 566-5599
24-hour Spill number:
(203) 566-3338

Maine Department of
Environmental Protection
State House, Station 17
Augusta, ME 04333
(207) 289-7688
24-Hour Spill Number:
Massachusetts Executive Office
of Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge St., 20th Floor
Boston, MA 02202
(617) 727-9800
24-Hour Spill Numbers:
Business Hours (617) 292-5648
After business hours (617) 566-4500
(State Police Communication Center)

New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services
Health and Human
Services Building
6 Hazen Drive, P.O.Box 95
Concord, NH 03301
(603) 271-3503
24-Hour Spill Number:
Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management
9 Hayes St.
Providence, Rl 02908
(401) 277-6800
24-Hour Spill Number:
(401) 277-3070

Vermont Agency of Natural
103 South Main St.
Waterbury, VT 05676
(802) 244-7347
24-Hour Spill Number:

This report was produced by
EPA's Office of Public Affairs.

Brooke Chamberlain-Cook

Deborah Johnson
Alice Kaufman

Norman Beloin
Larry Brill
David Conroy
Timothy Conway
Jeffry Fowley
Bart Hague
William Holbrook
Greg Kennan
Andrew Lauterback
Ira Leighton
Kevin McSweeney
Robert Mendoza
Linda Murphy
William Nuzzo
Robert O'Meara
Marv Rosenstein
Susan Studlien
William Torrey
Edward Woo

Cover: Jerry Howard®/Positive
Howard BrettVImage Photo
   pp. 26 (top), 28 (both photos),
   37 (top)
Brooke Chamberlain-Cook, p.3
Jerry Howards/Positive Images,
   title page, pp. 2,7 (top), 11,12
   (bottom) 16,17, IS (top) 23
   (right) 38,39,48
Stephen Jennings8, pp. 1,7,12,23,
Deborah Johnson, pp. 29, 32, 41, 45,
Alice Kaufman, pp. 32, 40, 42
Karen Levitt, pp. 33, 34
NH DES, p. 43
Remediation Technologies, Inc.,
   (inset) p. 21
Elaine Stanley, p. 21

This publication is printed on
partially recycled paper.